hotair--2020-10-20--Studies: Fatality rates from COVID are dropping sharply everywhere

For the second straight day , a bright light shines through the gloom of a darkening COVID outlook this fall .
Yesterday the good news was that fears of schools becoming mass incubators of coronavirus appear to be overblown .
Positivity rates across a sample of tens of thousands of students and staff in NYC are minuscule .
Maybe we can have safe in-class instruction this fall .
Today ’ s news is even better .
As cases explode in Europe and climb towards a new peak in the U.S. , a tantalizing mystery has emerged : Why aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tolls in hot spots that we saw in the spring ?
Deaths *are* rising in Europe from their summer lows ( upwards of 150 daily on bad days in the UK and France recently ) but they ’ re nowhere near the gory levels of April even though both countries are setting records in the number of daily cases .
The trends in cases and deaths here in the U.S. also diverged awhile ago : The pessimistic theory of why deaths in western countries haven ’ t approached their spring peaks is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was much , much greater than the meager testing available at the time was able to detect .
Deaths still track cases under this theory ; the spring death toll was a simple function of there having been a gigantic “ hidden ” epidemic at the time .
The more optimistic theory is that science has simply caught up to some degree .
People who would have died if they were infected in March are surviving now because doctors have gotten better , and better equipped , to treat the disease .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the optimistic theory is correct .
COVID has become less lethal .
[ One ] study , which was of a single health system , finds that mortality has dropped among hospitalized patients by nearly 18 points since the pandemic began .
Patients in the study had a 25.6 % chance of dying at the start of the pandemic ; they now have a 7.6 % chance… So have death rates dropped because of improvements in treatments ?
Or is it because of the change in who ’ s getting sick ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleagues looked at over 5,000 hospitalizations in the NYU Langone Health system between March and August .
They adjusted for factors including age and other diseases , like diabetes , to rule out the possibility that the numbers had dropped only because younger , healthier people were getting diagnosed .
They found that death rates dropped for all groups , even older patients by 18 percentage points on average… “ I would classify this as a silver lining to what has been quite a hard time for many people , ” says Bilal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Alan Turing Institute in the U.K .
He has conducted his own research of 21,000 hospitalized cases in England , which also found a similarly sharp drop in the death rate .
The work , which will soon appear in the journal Critical Care Medicine and was released earlier in preprint , shows an unadjusted drop in death rates among hospitalized patients of around 20 percentage points since the worst days of the pandemic .
Mateen says drops are clear across ages , underlying conditions and racial groups .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers suspect .
Partly it ’ s a matter of doctors getting better at anticipating dangerous complications , like blood clots .
Partly it ’ s a matter of younger , hardier people composing a larger percentage of patients .
Partly it ’ s a function of mask-wearing , one researcher speculated , believing that masks might filter out some particles before they ’ re inhaled , leading to smaller viral loads and less severe cases .
Doctors did stress , though , that even a 7.6 percent chance of death is unusually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher than the flu .
The fact that so many COVID survivors suffer complications afterward , sometimes long-term , also distinguishes it from more familiar respiratory diseases .
Coronavirus may be less likely to kill you now but it ’ s still capable of making life miserable for weeks or months .
“ But what about antibody treatments ?
” you say .
Regeneron ’ s treatment saved Trump , didn ’ t it ?
Well … maybe not .
The data from two new randomized clinical trials , one from Italy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit from the antibody treatment tocilizumab .
And even if Regeneron ’ s and Eli Lilly ’ s treatments do help , they ’ ll be in short supply initially and pose logistical difficulties .
The drugs are administered intravenously , so you ’ d need to get to a clinic or ER to be treated .
And because state agencies that are consumed with other COVID business are being tasked to coordinate distribution , it ’ s an open question as to how efficient the dispersal will be .
Just like it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Regeneron ’ s drug did anything for the president .
He keeps talking about how great he felt after getting it but that could easily be explained by the dexamethasone he was getting , not the antibody drug .
Steroids ( in ) famously can induce feelings of strength and even invincibility .
While we ’ re busy tempering expectations about the efficacy of antibody drugs , we should probably take a moment for a reality check on the vaccine too .
Lord knows it ’ ll help reduce infections , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot , whip off our masks , and have a big indoor kegger where we ’ re all breathing in each other ’ s faces probably isn ’ t happening : If most of the infections are in the placebo group—say 26 out of 32—that would suggest the vaccine is at least 76 percent effective .
That ’ d be pretty good .
But scientists have cautioned that a COVID-19 vaccine might be less effective than we ’ d like , based on how vaccines against respiratory viruses tend to work .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least 50 percent efficacy for a COVID-19 vaccine .
It ’ ll take longer and more cases for trials to reach a conclusion if vaccine efficacy is on the lower side .
So if the first interim results are a little disappointing , that “ doesn ’ t mean this is a failed vaccine , ” Lowe says .
“ We ’ re just going to keep on rolling.
” We ’ ll have a better idea of efficacy once we ’ ve seen how the vaccine performs in more people .
Conversely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shock if some of these vaccine candidates do turn out to be ineffective .
The development process from Phase 1 to 2 to 3 has gone very smoothly so far .
But , in general , more than 90 percent of drugs and treatments fail , and close to 50 percent of them fail in Phase 3 .
Lowe says he expects COVID-19 vaccine candidates to do much better because scientists are building on research into MERS and SARS , two related coronaviruses .
I haven ’ t yet digested the possibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of American life for the next several years or longer , especially in winter , because the vaccine just isn ’ t effective enough to put COVID down for the count .
*Maybe* the combination of the vaccine , masks , and improved treatments will get us to the point relatively quickly where the disease isn ’ t much worse than the flu even if you do get it , but we may be playing the waiting game for awhile .
Which wouldn ’ t be an entirely bad thing : Even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans made a point of wearing masks semi-regularly in winter , that would break many chains of transmission both for coronavirus and for lesser respiratory diseases like influenza .
We might see an abiding perennial drop in flu hospitalizations .
Here ’ s Scott Gottlieb warning that we may be only a week or so behind Europe in experiencing rampant community spread here in the U.S. Europe ’ s present was our near-future back in the spring ; Gottlieb ’ s speculating that that will be true in the fall as well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already climbing .
If you ’ re thinking that ’ s not a big deal given the lower mortality rates now , note this bit from the NPR piece : “ Mateen says that his data strongly suggest that keeping hospitals below their maximum capacity also helps to increase survival rates .
When cases surge and hospitals fill up , ‘ staff are stretched , mistakes are made , it ’ s no one ’ s fault — it ’ s that the system isn ’ t built to operate near 100 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected people there are , the more hospital beds will be occupied , and thus the more preventable deaths are likely to result .

For the second straight day, a bright light shines through the gloom of a darkening COVID outlook this fall. Yesterday the good news was that fears of schools becoming mass incubators of coronavirus appear to be overblown. Positivity rates across a sample of tens of thousands of students and staff in NYC are minuscule. Maybe we can have safe in-class instruction this fall.
Today’s news is even better. As cases explode in Europe and climb towards a new peak in the U.S., a tantalizing mystery has emerged: Why aren’t we seeing the same crushing death tolls in hot spots that we saw in the spring? Deaths *are* rising in Europe from their summer lows (upwards of 150 daily on bad days in the UK and France recently) but they’re nowhere near the gory levels of April even though both countries are setting records in the number of daily cases. The trends in cases and deaths here in the U.S. also diverged awhile ago:
The pessimistic theory of why deaths in western countries haven’t approached their spring peaks is that the number of infections during the spring was much, much greater than the meager testing available at the time was able to detect. Deaths still track cases under this theory; the spring death toll was a simple function of there having been a gigantic “hidden” epidemic at the time.
The more optimistic theory is that science has simply caught up to some degree. People who would have died if they were infected in March are surviving now because doctors have gotten better, and better equipped, to treat the disease. According to NPR, two new studies suggest that the optimistic theory is correct. COVID has become less lethal.
[One] study, which was of a single health system, finds that mortality has dropped among hospitalized patients by nearly 18 points since the pandemic began. Patients in the study had a 25.6% chance of dying at the start of the pandemic; they now have a 7.6% chance… So have death rates dropped because of improvements in treatments? Or is it because of the change in who’s getting sick? To find out, Horwitz and her colleagues looked at over 5,000 hospitalizations in the NYU Langone Health system between March and August. They adjusted for factors including age and other diseases, like diabetes, to rule out the possibility that the numbers had dropped only because younger, healthier people were getting diagnosed. They found that death rates dropped for all groups, even older patients by 18 percentage points on average… “I would classify this as a silver lining to what has been quite a hard time for many people,” says Bilal Mateen, a data science fellow at the Alan Turing Institute in the U.K. He has conducted his own research of 21,000 hospitalized cases in England, which also found a similarly sharp drop in the death rate. The work, which will soon appear in the journal Critical Care Medicine and was released earlier in preprint, shows an unadjusted drop in death rates among hospitalized patients of around 20 percentage points since the worst days of the pandemic. Mateen says drops are clear across ages, underlying conditions and racial groups.
There’s no silver-bullet explanation for the decline, researchers suspect. Partly it’s a matter of doctors getting better at anticipating dangerous complications, like blood clots. Partly it’s a matter of younger, hardier people composing a larger percentage of patients. Partly it’s a function of mask-wearing, one researcher speculated, believing that masks might filter out some particles before they’re inhaled, leading to smaller viral loads and less severe cases. Doctors did stress, though, that even a 7.6 percent chance of death is unusually high for a disease, and certainly higher than the flu. The fact that so many COVID survivors suffer complications afterward, sometimes long-term, also distinguishes it from more familiar respiratory diseases. Coronavirus may be less likely to kill you now but it’s still capable of making life miserable for weeks or months.
“But what about antibody treatments?” you say. Regeneron’s treatment saved Trump, didn’t it? Well … maybe not. The data from two new randomized clinical trials, one from Italy and other from France, found no major benefit from the antibody treatment tocilizumab. And even if Regeneron’s and Eli Lilly’s treatments do help, they’ll be in short supply initially and pose logistical difficulties. The drugs are administered intravenously, so you’d need to get to a clinic or ER to be treated. And because state agencies that are consumed with other COVID business are being tasked to coordinate distribution, it’s an open question as to how efficient the dispersal will be.
Just like it’s also an open question whether Regeneron’s drug did anything for the president. He keeps talking about how great he felt after getting it but that could easily be explained by the dexamethasone he was getting, not the antibody drug. Steroids (in)famously can induce feelings of strength and even invincibility.
While we’re busy tempering expectations about the efficacy of antibody drugs, we should probably take a moment for a reality check on the vaccine too. Lord knows it’ll help reduce infections, but the dream scenario where we all get the shot, whip off our masks, and have a big indoor kegger where we’re all breathing in each other’s faces probably isn’t happening:
If most of the infections are in the placebo group—say 26 out of 32—that would suggest the vaccine is at least 76 percent effective. That’d be pretty good. But scientists have cautioned that a COVID-19 vaccine might be less effective than we’d like, based on how vaccines against respiratory viruses tend to work. The FDA has set a bar of at least 50 percent efficacy for a COVID-19 vaccine. It’ll take longer and more cases for trials to reach a conclusion if vaccine efficacy is on the lower side. So if the first interim results are a little disappointing, that “doesn’t mean this is a failed vaccine,” Lowe says. “We’re just going to keep on rolling.” We’ll have a better idea of efficacy once we’ve seen how the vaccine performs in more people. Conversely, it shouldn’t come as a shock if some of these vaccine candidates do turn out to be ineffective. The development process from Phase 1 to 2 to 3 has gone very smoothly so far. But, in general, more than 90 percent of drugs and treatments fail, and close to 50 percent of them fail in Phase 3. Lowe says he expects COVID-19 vaccine candidates to do much better because scientists are building on research into MERS and SARS, two related coronaviruses.
I haven’t yet digested the possibility that masks could become a regular part of American life for the next several years or longer, especially in winter, because the vaccine just isn’t effective enough to put COVID down for the count. *Maybe* the combination of the vaccine, masks, and improved treatments will get us to the point relatively quickly where the disease isn’t much worse than the flu even if you do get it, but we may be playing the waiting game for awhile. Which wouldn’t be an entirely bad thing: Even if only, say, a third of Americans made a point of wearing masks semi-regularly in winter, that would break many chains of transmission both for coronavirus and for lesser respiratory diseases like influenza. We might see an abiding perennial drop in flu hospitalizations.
Here’s Scott Gottlieb warning that we may be only a week or so behind Europe in experiencing rampant community spread here in the U.S. Europe’s present was our near-future back in the spring; Gottlieb’s speculating that that will be true in the fall as well, especially with case counts in the U.S. already climbing. If you’re thinking that’s not a big deal given the lower mortality rates now, note this bit from the NPR piece: “Mateen says that his data strongly suggest that keeping hospitals below their maximum capacity also helps to increase survival rates. When cases surge and hospitals fill up, ‘staff are stretched, mistakes are made, it’s no one’s fault — it’s that the system isn’t built to operate near 100%,’ he says.” The more infected people there are, the more hospital beds will be occupied, and thus the more preventable deaths are likely to result.


hotair--2020-10-20--Antifa man who hit Seattle officer with a metal bat said he wanted to 'slit every SPD throat'

Yesterday Seattle PD announced the arrest of 19-year-old Jacob Greenberg in connection with multiple incidents of violence that took place at protests .
The best known of these was his use of a metal bat to strike an SPD officer in the back of the head .
Fortunately , the officer was wearing a helmet which probably saved his life .
The helmet was cracked by the impact from the bat .
As Ed pointed out when this happened last month , the anti-police individual who filmed the attack deleted their own video after Antifa complained it could be used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Greenberg , the video had already been copied by others .
Using the clip police were able to tie him to multiple other crimes including throwing a Molotov cocktail at a police precinct on Sep. 1 and setting fire to dumpsters on Sep. 26 .
On Sep. 27 , a search warrant was served at the home where he lives with his parents , one of whom is a former Democratic State Representative .
Police found two bats including a metal bat that matched the one used in the attack on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Greenberg ’ s texts which revealed he had been celebrating the attack with friends : Later that night , Greenberg allegedly shared a KOMO news article that shows his assault against the officer .
His friend joked about calling 911 on him .
He then texted McMillan a link of a video of the officer being assaulted .
“ I AM SO PISSED AT THE COPS !
!
!
I < EXPLETIVE > WENT OFF ON THEM TONIGHT !
, ” he texted .
He opined , “ I ’ m proud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have a helmet on lol , ” and McMillan replied , “ Well still a great shot though.
” Greenberg agreed .
Greenberg and McMillan discussed destroying evidence of their crime , according to detectives .
The texts indicate the two used the texting apps Signal and Telegraph , which allow untraceable chats .
Other “ notable quotes ” highlighted from the Greenberg texts including , “ And can we like pls slit every spd throat , ” and “ I want the whole damn system to just burn the < expiative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really like fire.
” Greenberg is now in jail and will have his first hearing next week .
Meanwhile , the City Council is scheduled to discuss plans to cut more funding for the department this week .
More than 110 officers have left the force so far this year including 39 last month .
KOMO News looked through some of the exit interview documents for the departing officers .
The defunding efforts by the “ socialist city council ” was one of the issues mentioned : One retiring patrol sergeant who had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 years said , “ I refuse to work for this socialist city council and their political agenda .
This agenda sacrifices the health and well-being of the officers and ultimately will destroy the fabric of this once fine city.
” When asked : “ What factors had a negative effect on morale in the department ?
” One officer whose job is up in the air said , “ The council wanting to defund us and gaining ground doing it .
Rioters not being charged even when they assault officers.
” Another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was resigning after 6-10 years of service offered this explanation for leaving the department : “ Current hostile work environment .
In a precinct that is under civil unrest by a small group that is constantly committing multiple felonies and attempting to murder peace officers.
” Here ’ s KOMO News ’ report on the Interim Chief ’ s statement about violence by far-left agitators :

Yesterday Seattle PD announced the arrest of 19-year-old Jacob Greenberg in connection with multiple incidents of violence that took place at protests. The best known of these was his use of a metal bat to strike an SPD officer in the back of the head. Fortunately, the officer was wearing a helmet which probably saved his life. The helmet was cracked by the impact from the bat.
Black bloc terrorist tries to kill a Seattle police officer by hitting him in the head with a bat. The Council and Mayor will say nothing. https://t.co/L7Giudj8Ey — (((Jason Rantz))) on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) September 24, 2020
As Ed pointed out when this happened last month, the anti-police individual who filmed the attack deleted their own video after Antifa complained it could be used to identify the people involved. Unfortunately for Greenberg, the video had already been copied by others. Using the clip police were able to tie him to multiple other crimes including throwing a Molotov cocktail at a police precinct on Sep. 1 and setting fire to dumpsters on Sep. 26.
On Sep. 27, a search warrant was served at the home where he lives with his parents, one of whom is a former Democratic State Representative. Police found two bats including a metal bat that matched the one used in the attack on the police officer. Police also got access to Greenberg’s texts which revealed he had been celebrating the attack with friends:
Later that night, Greenberg allegedly shared a KOMO news article that shows his assault against the officer. His friend joked about calling 911 on him. He then texted McMillan a link of a video of the officer being assaulted. “I AM SO PISSED AT THE COPS!!! I WENT OFF ON THEM TONIGHT!,” he texted. He opined, “I’m proud too hehe. Wish he didn’t have a helmet on lol,” and McMillan replied, “Well still a great shot though.” Greenberg agreed. Greenberg and McMillan discussed destroying evidence of their crime, according to detectives. The texts indicate the two used the texting apps Signal and Telegraph, which allow untraceable chats. Other “notable quotes” highlighted from the Greenberg texts including, “And can we like pls slit every spd throat,” and “I want the whole damn system to just burn the down!!! Btw I really like fire.”
Greenberg is now in jail and will have his first hearing next week. Meanwhile, the City Council is scheduled to discuss plans to cut more funding for the department this week. More than 110 officers have left the force so far this year including 39 last month. KOMO News looked through some of the exit interview documents for the departing officers. The defunding efforts by the “socialist city council” was one of the issues mentioned:
One retiring patrol sergeant who had been on the force for more than 20 years said, “I refuse to work for this socialist city council and their political agenda. This agenda sacrifices the health and well-being of the officers and ultimately will destroy the fabric of this once fine city.” When asked: “What factors had a negative effect on morale in the department?” One officer whose job is up in the air said, “The council wanting to defund us and gaining ground doing it. Rioters not being charged even when they assault officers.” Another patrol officer from the East Precinct who was resigning after 6-10 years of service offered this explanation for leaving the department: “Current hostile work environment. In a precinct that is under civil unrest by a small group that is constantly committing multiple felonies and attempting to murder peace officers.”
Here’s KOMO News’ report on the Interim Chief’s statement about violence by far-left agitators:


hotair--2020-10-20--Welker should ask Trump and Biden about UFOs, says... Newsweek?

We ’ ve already learned some of what we should expect from the final presidential debate this week .
For one thing , we know that the candidates ’ microphones are going to be muted at times , possibly to avoid any “ spicey ” encounters .
We ’ ve also heard that the original , scheduled focus of the debate , foreign policy , has been essentially scrapped by Kristen Welker .
She will instead go back to the same list of topics that were dealt with last time , such as the pandemic , racial inequity , police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s one subject missing from the list .
When will a debate moderator ask the candidates about the Pentagon ’ s UAP Task Force and whether or not they plan to release government information on UFO incursions into our air space ?
If you think it ’ s just me and the ufology enthusiasts asking about this , think again .
The question popped up this week at Newsweek .
2020 has been a shocking year , to say the least , so is it really unrealistic that the topic of UFOs could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Believe it or not , some Americans want to see President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden address the topic of national security in a totally new way on Thursday night .
Bryce Zabel , writer and producer of NBC ’ s Dark Skies , published a Medium article on Monday that questions if debate moderator and NBC reporter Kristen Welker could bring up the topic of UFOs during the final presidential debate before the 2020 election .
Zabel makes many good points as usual , but then again , UFOs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do I think that Welker will set aside her anti-Trump agenda long enough to field a topic like this ?
No .
I would say the chances are basically zero .
There are still too many people in mainstream media who are afraid that broaching the subject would make them appear unserious or even unhinged .
I was doing some searching this afternoon and couldn ’ t locate a single instance where Welker has even touched on the topic .
But that doesn ’ t mean that it ’ s not worth asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of debate .
The simple fact that Newsweek was willing to bring it up at all shows how far the UFO topic has migrated from the realm of paranormal research into the mainstream media .
Tucker Carlson hits the subject regularly on Fox News .
Both Jake Tapper and Michael Smerconish have done serious segments about UAP incursions on CNN .
The New York Times and the Washington Post have both done multiple articles covering these strange craft without making jokes about it .
As for the candidates , President Trump has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maria Bartiromo on Fox .
He ’ s never given us an answer beyond saying that he would “ check into it ” up until now , but he hasn ’ t brushed it off entirely , either .
But we ’ ve yet to hear anything from Joe Biden on this topic .
The same Bryce Zabel referenced above helpfully published a UFO briefing memo for Joe Biden earlier this year , though I ’ ve seen nothing to indicate that Uncle Joe looked it over .
One reporter in New Hampshire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swung through the state during the primaries about their position on UAP , but he somehow never got around to Joe Biden .
So we really don ’ t know where Joe stands or if he has any position at all .
But if he does somehow wind up winning the election , he should really get up to speed .
Even Harry Reid has admitted that there is a ton more evidence that the public hasn ’ t seen and that UFOs have shut down some of our nuclear weapons facilities in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our restricted military airspace , they are a security concern .
With all that in mind , perhaps Kristen Welker could give this a second ( or first ) glance .
Who knows ?
The President might just decide to drop a truth bomb in the middle of the debate .
And wouldn ’ t that just be a totally 2020 thing to happen right about now ?

We’ve already learned some of what we should expect from the final presidential debate this week. For one thing, we know that the candidates’ microphones are going to be muted at times, possibly to avoid any “spicey” encounters. We’ve also heard that the original, scheduled focus of the debate, foreign policy, has been essentially scrapped by Kristen Welker. She will instead go back to the same list of topics that were dealt with last time, such as the pandemic, racial inequity, police reform, etc. But there’s one subject missing from the list. When will a debate moderator ask the candidates about the Pentagon’s UAP Task Force and whether or not they plan to release government information on UFO incursions into our air space? If you think it’s just me and the ufology enthusiasts asking about this, think again. The question popped up this week at Newsweek.
2020 has been a shocking year, to say the least, so is it really unrealistic that the topic of UFOs could surface at the next presidential debate? Believe it or not, some Americans want to see President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden address the topic of national security in a totally new way on Thursday night. Bryce Zabel, writer and producer of NBC’s Dark Skies, published a Medium article on Monday that questions if debate moderator and NBC reporter Kristen Welker could bring up the topic of UFOs during the final presidential debate before the 2020 election.
Zabel makes many good points as usual, but then again, UFOs are sort of his beat. So do I think that Welker will set aside her anti-Trump agenda long enough to field a topic like this? No. I would say the chances are basically zero. There are still too many people in mainstream media who are afraid that broaching the subject would make them appear unserious or even unhinged. I was doing some searching this afternoon and couldn’t locate a single instance where Welker has even touched on the topic.
But that doesn’t mean that it’s not worth asking about or somehow not a valid point of debate. The simple fact that Newsweek was willing to bring it up at all shows how far the UFO topic has migrated from the realm of paranormal research into the mainstream media. Tucker Carlson hits the subject regularly on Fox News. Both Jake Tapper and Michael Smerconish have done serious segments about UAP incursions on CNN. The New York Times and the Washington Post have both done multiple articles covering these strange craft without making jokes about it.
As for the candidates, President Trump has been asked multiple times, most recently by Maria Bartiromo on Fox. He’s never given us an answer beyond saying that he would “check into it” up until now, but he hasn’t brushed it off entirely, either. But we’ve yet to hear anything from Joe Biden on this topic. The same Bryce Zabel referenced above helpfully published a UFO briefing memo for Joe Biden earlier this year, though I’ve seen nothing to indicate that Uncle Joe looked it over.
One reporter in New Hampshire kept asking every Democratic presidential candidate that swung through the state during the primaries about their position on UAP, but he somehow never got around to Joe Biden. So we really don’t know where Joe stands or if he has any position at all. But if he does somehow wind up winning the election, he should really get up to speed. Even Harry Reid has admitted that there is a ton more evidence that the public hasn’t seen and that UFOs have shut down some of our nuclear weapons facilities in the past. If they are in our restricted military airspace, they are a security concern.
With all that in mind, perhaps Kristen Welker could give this a second (or first) glance. Who knows? The President might just decide to drop a truth bomb in the middle of the debate. And wouldn’t that just be a totally 2020 thing to happen right about now?


hotair--2020-10-20--Chinese 'diplomats' beat up a Taiwanese official and put him in the hospital

The island nation of Fiji lies off the east coast of Australia nearly 5,000 miles from China and Taiwan .
Earlier this month a beach resort in Fiji ’ s capital of Suva became the scene of a fistfight between two “ diplomats ” from China and Taiwanese officials .
Here ’ s what happened : China has led a concerted effort in recent years to undercut Taiwan ’ s influence on the global stage , including in the Pacific .
As part of that campaign , Beijing has poached several allies of Taiwan in the region , despite objections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Those tensions spilled over at the Grand Pacific Hotel in Suva on Oct. 8 , when Taiwan hosted a reception to celebrate its national day before an audience of Fijian officials , scholars and nonprofit workers .
( Fiji does not have official relations with Taipei . )
According to Taiwan ’ s foreign ministry , a pair of Chinese diplomats showed up at the reception uninvited and sought to photograph guests .
Beijing has deployed such tactics — turning up at events , taking photographs of people — in recent years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support them .
When Taiwanese officials tried to block the Chinese diplomats , the visitors turned violent , according to the ministry .
They beat a Taiwanese official so severely that the official was hospitalized , the ministry said .
This is what China refers to as “ wolf warrior ” diplomacy , based on a 2015 Chinese action film called Wolf Warrior which is sort of a Chinese version of Rambo .
In this case , they send spies to the event to openly take pictures of everyone who is there , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are asked to leave , they start throwing punches .
China of course tells a different story .
Chinese spokesman Zhao Lijian said , “ On that very evening , the staff of the Taipei Trade Office in Fiji spoke and acted provocatively against the Chinese Embassy staff who were carrying out their official duties in the public area of the same hotel where the ‘ event ’ was held.
” What exactly were the “ official duties ” of Chinese spies on foreign territory at a party they weren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really explain .
China also claimed to be offended by a cake that appeared at the party which was intended to look like a flag , possibly a Taiwanese flag .
If none of this makes sense to you , well , China doesn ’ t care .
That ’ s how “ wolf warrior ” diplomacy works , i.e .
China does what it wants and doesn ’ t really bother trying to make it seem reasonable .
They ’ re Rambo , at least in their own minds .
What ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really does seem to be gearing up for possible action against Taiwan .
The South China Morning Post reported yesterday : Beijing is stepping up the militarisation of its southeast coast as it prepares for a possible invasion of Taiwan , military observers and sources have said .
The People ’ s Liberation Army has been upgrading its missile bases , and one Beijing-based military source said it has deployed its most advanced hypersonic missile the DF-17 to the area… Beijing has sought to keep up the pressure on Taiwan with a series @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a large-scale invasion drill last weekend and multiple air sorties that saw almost 40 fighters crossing the median line in the Taiwan Strait in a single day last month .
There ’ s not much reason to doubt that Bejing plans to do the same thing to Taiwan that it did to Hong Kong this summer , i.e .
establish complete political and social control .
They may be just waiting for the right moment .
Given that the U.S. is the main thing holding them at bay and that we are about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcome could drag on for days or weeks , China ’ s moment could be coming soon .

The island nation of Fiji lies off the east coast of Australia nearly 5,000 miles from China and Taiwan. Earlier this month a beach resort in Fiji’s capital of Suva became the scene of a fistfight between two “diplomats” from China and Taiwanese officials. Here’s what happened:
China has led a concerted effort in recent years to undercut Taiwan’s influence on the global stage, including in the Pacific. As part of that campaign, Beijing has poached several allies of Taiwan in the region, despite objections from the United States and other governments. Those tensions spilled over at the Grand Pacific Hotel in Suva on Oct. 8, when Taiwan hosted a reception to celebrate its national day before an audience of Fijian officials, scholars and nonprofit workers. (Fiji does not have official relations with Taipei.) According to Taiwan’s foreign ministry, a pair of Chinese diplomats showed up at the reception uninvited and sought to photograph guests. Beijing has deployed such tactics — turning up at events, taking photographs of people — in recent years to intimidate its rivals and those who support them. When Taiwanese officials tried to block the Chinese diplomats, the visitors turned violent, according to the ministry. They beat a Taiwanese official so severely that the official was hospitalized, the ministry said.
This is what China refers to as “wolf warrior” diplomacy, based on a 2015 Chinese action film called Wolf Warrior which is sort of a Chinese version of Rambo. In this case, they send spies to the event to openly take pictures of everyone who is there, probably trying to intimidate them. When they are asked to leave, they start throwing punches.
China of course tells a different story. Chinese spokesman Zhao Lijian said, “On that very evening, the staff of the Taipei Trade Office in Fiji spoke and acted provocatively against the Chinese Embassy staff who were carrying out their official duties in the public area of the same hotel where the ‘event’ was held.” What exactly were the “official duties” of Chinese spies on foreign territory at a party they weren’t invited to? Zhao didn’t really explain. China also claimed to be offended by a cake that appeared at the party which was intended to look like a flag, possibly a Taiwanese flag.
If none of this makes sense to you, well, China doesn’t care. That’s how “wolf warrior” diplomacy works, i.e. China does what it wants and doesn’t really bother trying to make it seem reasonable. They’re Rambo, at least in their own minds.
What’s concerning about this is that China really does seem to be gearing up for possible action against Taiwan. The South China Morning Post reported yesterday:
Beijing is stepping up the militarisation of its southeast coast as it prepares for a possible invasion of Taiwan, military observers and sources have said. The People’s Liberation Army has been upgrading its missile bases, and one Beijing-based military source said it has deployed its most advanced hypersonic missile the DF-17 to the area… Beijing has sought to keep up the pressure on Taiwan with a series of exercises around the island, including a large-scale invasion drill last weekend and multiple air sorties that saw almost 40 fighters crossing the median line in the Taiwan Strait in a single day last month.
There’s not much reason to doubt that Bejing plans to do the same thing to Taiwan that it did to Hong Kong this summer, i.e. establish complete political and social control. They may be just waiting for the right moment. Given that the U.S. is the main thing holding them at bay and that we are about to be occupied with an election whose outcome could drag on for days or weeks, China’s moment could be coming soon.


hotair--2020-10-20--Compton launches largest Universal Basic Income program in country

It ’ s an idea that ’ s been gaining in popularity in social justice warrior circles for a while now and a few pilot programs have been attempted .
Universal Basic Income ( UBI ) is the concept of ensuring that everyone has some basic level of income to meet their minimum needs even if they are unable or unwilling to work .
And now it ’ s coming to the Compton neighborhood , located to the south of Los Angeles .
This plan is being billed as the “ largest universal basic income program in the nation.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are more than a few details to iron out before they begin running up the victory flag .
( CBS Los Angeles ) Compton is launching the nation ’ s largest universal basic income program , with plans to distribute regular cash payments to about 800 low-income residents for two years .
The Compton Pledge , which will be launched by the end of this year , will distribute cash relief to a pre-verified group of low-income Compton residents .
Recipients will be kept anonymous and the program will be “ rigorously evaluated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who will report preliminary findings at six-month intervals .
Recipients will get to choose between multiple payment options , and residents who don ’ t have a current bank account will be provided with no-cost financial services , according to Compton city officials .
Right off the bat , this isn ’ t a “ universal ” program in any sense of the word .
The pilot program will apply to 800 people in a city with a population of 95,000 , 20 % of which live below the poverty line .
Payments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per month .
I ’ m confident that could be a big help if you ’ re flat broke , but I ’ m pretty sure you can ’ t even rent a parking space near LA for 600 bucks a month .
How will they determine who will be getting the free money ?
All they ’ re saying is that the recipients have been “ pre-verified.
” Few details beyond that are offered beyond saying that they will all be persons of low income , with the formerly incarcerated and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for participation .
So some of the money will wind up going to illegal aliens while many actual citizens do without .
Ah , well… it ’ s an imperfect world .
Participants will be able to choose from several methods of payment .
Direct deposit or electronic transfer for those who have existing bank accounts or pre-paid debit cards for those who do not .
The organizers claim that the program will be “ rigorously evaluated , ” but we ’ ve heard that before , specifically in the pilot program that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recall , the data collected in the Stockton experiment turned out to be essentially useless .
The saving grace of the Compton Pledge is that it ’ s not running on taxpayer money .
It ’ s all coming from donations from a variety of sources , so how they choose to distribute their cash is up to them .
But the one sticking point that a program like this always seems to run into is that it ’ s not a generally popular idea .
Once you start trying to expand it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begin asking why some people receive the benefits and not others .
They also point out that there are already many social safety net programs in place for the needy .
And if we ’ re being honest , people who have had to work for a living all their lives wonder why someone who is “ unwilling to work ” should be getting a free ride .
Still , this is a very California idea from the sound of it .
If it helps out a couple of hundred people who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to them .
But as some sort of national or even statewide possibility , I simply don ’ t see it happening .

It’s an idea that’s been gaining in popularity in social justice warrior circles for a while now and a few pilot programs have been attempted. Universal Basic Income (UBI) is the concept of ensuring that everyone has some basic level of income to meet their minimum needs even if they are unable or unwilling to work. And now it’s coming to the Compton neighborhood, located to the south of Los Angeles. This plan is being billed as the “largest universal basic income program in the nation.” That may be true, but there are more than a few details to iron out before they begin running up the victory flag. (CBS Los Angeles)
Compton is launching the nation’s largest universal basic income program, with plans to distribute regular cash payments to about 800 low-income residents for two years. The Compton Pledge, which will be launched by the end of this year, will distribute cash relief to a pre-verified group of low-income Compton residents. Recipients will be kept anonymous and the program will be “rigorously evaluated” by an independent research team, who will report preliminary findings at six-month intervals. Recipients will get to choose between multiple payment options, and residents who don’t have a current bank account will be provided with no-cost financial services, according to Compton city officials.
Right off the bat, this isn’t a “universal” program in any sense of the word. The pilot program will apply to 800 people in a city with a population of 95,000, 20% of which live below the poverty line. Payments will range between 300 and 600 dollars per month. I’m confident that could be a big help if you’re flat broke, but I’m pretty sure you can’t even rent a parking space near LA for 600 bucks a month.
How will they determine who will be getting the free money? All they’re saying is that the recipients have been “pre-verified.” Few details beyond that are offered beyond saying that they will all be persons of low income, with the formerly incarcerated and “immigrants of various legal status” eligible for participation. So some of the money will wind up going to illegal aliens while many actual citizens do without. Ah, well… it’s an imperfect world.
Participants will be able to choose from several methods of payment. Direct deposit or electronic transfer for those who have existing bank accounts or pre-paid debit cards for those who do not. The organizers claim that the program will be “rigorously evaluated,” but we’ve heard that before, specifically in the pilot program that ran in Stockton. As you may recall, the data collected in the Stockton experiment turned out to be essentially useless.
The saving grace of the Compton Pledge is that it’s not running on taxpayer money. It’s all coming from donations from a variety of sources, so how they choose to distribute their cash is up to them. But the one sticking point that a program like this always seems to run into is that it’s not a generally popular idea. Once you start trying to expand it and tax dollars get involved, people begin asking why some people receive the benefits and not others. They also point out that there are already many social safety net programs in place for the needy. And if we’re being honest, people who have had to work for a living all their lives wonder why someone who is “unwilling to work” should be getting a free ride.
Still, this is a very California idea from the sound of it. If it helps out a couple of hundred people who are down on their luck, more power to them. But as some sort of national or even statewide possibility, I simply don’t see it happening.


hotair--2020-10-20--"We want law and order": Minneapolis residents sue over shrinking police resources

Who didn ’ t see this moment coming for the Minneapolis city council and Mayor Jacob Frey ?
The council ’ s police-abolition posturing prompted an abrupt and widespread drain of sworn officers from the Minneapolis Police Department , through retirements , disability claims , and just plain old resignations .
The MPD canceled recruiting classes as well , while waiting to see whether their would be a force to expand or even maintain .
As police retreated , crime exploded .
And the people who have been paying the price for the city council ’ s empty posturing ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group led by a former council member has launched a lawsuit against the council and Frey , essentially for dereliction of duty : “ We are here because of people ’ s safety , ” said Cathy Spann , a community activist .
“ We want law and order .
We want reform .
But we are in this city to say , enough is enough.
” Former Councilor Don Samuels and his wife say children can ’ t go outside right now as violent crimes including shootings , carjackings and murders have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We have made the emotional appeal , ” Samuels said .
“ We have demonstrated the statistical uptick and now this is the legal action we are exercising because it seems as if the City Council can not hear us and doesn ’ t feel what we feel.
” The group of petitioners questioned city leaders about the number of police officers currently deployed across the city .
They contend the MPD has fallen below the minimum thresholds required in the city ’ s charter because of the number of officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ type of leave or quit since the deadly Memorial Day arrest .
“ We simply want to have enough police on the streets to keep Minneapolis safe , ” said James Dickey , an attorney .
At least Minneapolis residents have belatedly fixed their sights on the right culprits in this disaster .
People in the city have blamed police issues either Donald Trump — who hasn ’ t had anything to do with local policing — or “ systemic racism , ” an interesting allegation in a city run by progressives for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of the blame-throwing is the fact that the city council and the mayor run the MPD , as required by charter , and it hasn ’ t even had to deal with a federal consent decree .
Whatever failings may or may not be present in MPD lie directly at the feet of the city council , which has tried to push police abolition as a distraction from that responsibility .
At issue in the lawsuit is the staffing requirement in the city charter for the Minneapolis Police Department .
The city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ballot next month to repeal that charter requirement as a means to disband the police , but it also would have allowed the council to avoid the staffing issue .
The precise formula would require roughly 750 duty-ready police officers at the present population level , but with more than 100 officers having left the service , it ’ s not clear whether the city is in compliance .
Residents hope to use that issue to force the city to replace the missing resources and to shift back to reform rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the residents didn ’ t have standing , which enraged the plaintiffs : “ There ’ s some obfuscation and some disagreement as to what that number is , and we believe that part of the apathy of the city is an unwillingness to look itself … in the mirror and say , ‘ What do we look like ?
What do we have and what do we need ?
’ ” Don Samuels said .
The Samuels say they were offended when the city attorneys told the judge the lawsuit has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been hit by gunfire .
“ To get standing we need to take a bullet , right ?
We ’ ve seen our neighbors take bullets .
We know the 20 year old , we know the six month old who ’ s in the car when her mom gets shot up , ” Sondra Samuels said .
They blame the Minneapolis City Council ’ s talk of defunding police for the rise in violence .
Resident Jon Lundberg is one of the plaintiffs .
That ’ s a bad argument , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to be a loser in court as well .
Unfortunately , even if these residents win , it ’ s not going to solve the problem .
Minneapolis police will still look for better environments in which to work , while its current leadership and its cowardice will disincentivize recruitment of replacement officers for years .
The lawsuit is a nice start , but what Minneapolis residents need is to get rid of its current clowns on the city council and find thirteen replacements with a more serious commitment to governance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue .

Who didn’t see this moment coming for the Minneapolis city council and Mayor Jacob Frey? The council’s police-abolition posturing prompted an abrupt and widespread drain of sworn officers from the Minneapolis Police Department, through retirements, disability claims, and just plain old resignations. The MPD canceled recruiting classes as well, while waiting to see whether their would be a force to expand or even maintain.
As police retreated, crime exploded. And the people who have been paying the price for the city council’s empty posturing ever since now want some accountability. A group led by a former council member has launched a lawsuit against the council and Frey, essentially for dereliction of duty:
“We are here because of people’s safety,” said Cathy Spann, a community activist. “We want law and order. We want reform. But we are in this city to say, enough is enough.” Former Councilor Don Samuels and his wife say children can’t go outside right now as violent crimes including shootings, carjackings and murders have increased since the death of George Floyd. “We have made the emotional appeal,” Samuels said. “We have demonstrated the statistical uptick and now this is the legal action we are exercising because it seems as if the City Council cannot hear us and doesn’t feel what we feel.” The group of petitioners questioned city leaders about the number of police officers currently deployed across the city. They contend the MPD has fallen below the minimum thresholds required in the city’s charter because of the number of officers who have either gone out on some type of leave or quit since the deadly Memorial Day arrest. “We simply want to have enough police on the streets to keep Minneapolis safe,” said James Dickey, an attorney.
At least Minneapolis residents have belatedly fixed their sights on the right culprits in this disaster. People in the city have blamed police issues either Donald Trump — who hasn’t had anything to do with local policing — or “systemic racism,” an interesting allegation in a city run by progressives for the past six-plus decades. Lost in all of the blame-throwing is the fact that the city council and the mayor run the MPD, as required by charter, and it hasn’t even had to deal with a federal consent decree. Whatever failings may or may not be present in MPD lie directly at the feet of the city council, which has tried to push police abolition as a distraction from that responsibility.
At issue in the lawsuit is the staffing requirement in the city charter for the Minneapolis Police Department. The city council tried to get a referendum on the ballot next month to repeal that charter requirement as a means to disband the police, but it also would have allowed the council to avoid the staffing issue. The precise formula would require roughly 750 duty-ready police officers at the present population level, but with more than 100 officers having left the service, it’s not clear whether the city is in compliance. Residents hope to use that issue to force the city to replace the missing resources and to shift back to reform rather than abolition.
The city tried to argue that the residents didn’t have standing, which enraged the plaintiffs:
“There’s some obfuscation and some disagreement as to what that number is, and we believe that part of the apathy of the city is an unwillingness to look itself … in the mirror and say, ‘What do we look like? What do we have and what do we need?’” Don Samuels said. The Samuels say they were offended when the city attorneys told the judge the lawsuit has no standing because none of the plaintiffs have been hit by gunfire. “To get standing we need to take a bullet, right? We’ve seen our neighbors take bullets. We know the 20 year old, we know the six month old who’s in the car when her mom gets shot up,” Sondra Samuels said. They blame the Minneapolis City Council’s talk of defunding police for the rise in violence. Resident Jon Lundberg is one of the plaintiffs.
That’s a bad argument, politically speaking, and it’s likely to be a loser in court as well. Unfortunately, even if these residents win, it’s not going to solve the problem. Minneapolis police will still look for better environments in which to work, while its current leadership and its cowardice will disincentivize recruitment of replacement officers for years. The lawsuit is a nice start, but what Minneapolis residents need is to get rid of its current clowns on the city council and find thirteen replacements with a more serious commitment to governance. Until that happens, the meltdown will continue.


hotair--2020-10-20--McConnell: Okay, yes, if Trump and Pelosi make a stimulus deal the Senate will put it on the floor -

McConnell: Okay, yes, if Trump and Pelosi make a stimulus deal the Senate will put it on the floor -- at some point; Update: Told Trump not to make a deal?

Five days ago he announced that he wouldn ’ t hold a vote on a deal between the White House and Democrats .
The price tag , in the ballpark of $ 1.8 trillion , was too high for his caucus .
It was a nonstarter .
Today he ’ s telling reporters that , sure , they ’ ll look at it .
How come ?
What changed ?
Theory one : Today is Pelosi ’ s deadline for a deal , with she and Steve Mnuchin holding final talks to see if they can get something done .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ heads-up by the White House that the two sides are still too far apart and there ’ s likely to be no deal , in which case he ’ s now free to position his caucus as perfectly open-minded about a big stimulus for PR purposes .
“ Sure , sure , of course we ’ re willing to consider a $ 2 trillion package .
Just as soon as Pelosi agrees to it.
” It ’ d be a costless bit of spin — if in fact talks are about to collapse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadline .
Theory two : Maybe Trump threatened McConnell and his caucus behind the scenes .
The president has less sway over Senate Republicans today than he ’ s had in the past thanks to his weak polling against Biden , but he ’ s not without leverage .
He showed over the weekend that he ’ s willing to make an example of critics like Ben Sasse , which must have sent a shiver through Sasse ’ s colleagues knowing that Trump will retain influence over the GOP base next year regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stimulus deal has become an urgent and understandable — and *very* belated — pre-election priority for Trump .
Conceivably he warned Cocaine Mitch that if he doesn ’ t back him up on a bill , he ’ ll start calling out Senate Republicans by name for not working harder to get it passed .
Which could be ruinous to incumbents like Joni Ernst and Susan Collins in tight races .
Theory three : McConnell ’ s seen the polling .
Part of the shift away from Mr. Trump on the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for new relief spending from the federal government — which Mr. Trump has nominally endorsed but which he has not sought actively to extract from congressional Republicans .
Seven in 10 voters , including more than half of Republicans , said they wanted to see a new multitrillion-dollar stimulus program that includes government support for citizens and emergency help for state and local governments .
There is also widespread public support for a $ 2 trillion renewable energy and infrastructure package that Mr. Biden has proposed as a form of economic stimulus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Times , including a public option for ObamaCare and a national mask mandate , the most popular one was a new coronavirus stimulus .
The public split 72/21 in favor overall ; not a single demographic group opposed the idea , with even Republicans supporting it at a 56 percent clip .
Fiscal conservatives like Ron Johnson have been running around pretending like it ’ s 2010 and that their base is still a group of angry government-shrinking tea partiers : “ A massive bill is a base killer , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some point in time , people will wonder : why are we voting for Republicans ?
…Or why vote at all ?
” Imagine pushing horsesh*t like that knowing ( 1 ) the public overwhelmingly supports a big stimulus , ( 2 ) Republican voters also support a big stimulus , ( 3 ) Trump walloped a field of 15 small-government conservatives in the 2016 primary by not bothering with tea-party dogma , and ( 4 ) Trump , who ’ s now pushing a big stimulus , has near-universal support among Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Senate Republicans want to posture as deficit hawks again in preparation for a Biden presidency , despite having revealed themselves to be utter frauds on that subject over the past four years , that ’ s one thing .
But putting it off on Republican voters by fretting about some imaginary revolt of the base is an insult to one ’ s intelligence .
You want to vote no on the stimulus ?
Go ahead — but own your vote .
Don ’ t tell Republicans that you ’ re only doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You aren ’ t .
How about this poll ?
The economy was Trump ’ s strongest issue as president , even after the pandemic started .
Then the stimulus money started to run out : To my amazement , with the economy teetering and Trump ’ s presidency hanging by a thread , John Thune told reporters yesterday that he ’ s doubtful they could find even 13 Republican votes in the Senate for a compromise bill supported by both Trump and Pelosi .
That ’ s less than a quarter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ d need to pass it with all Democrats voting yes .
But the votes aren ’ t there , Thune claims : If they can ’ t get 13 votes , they ’ re not fit to govern .
That ’ s not a “ Never Trump ” view — Trump ’ s actually trying to get this done !
— it ’ s a simple reflection of the fact that Republicans aren ’ t taking seriously the magnitude of the economic crisis that ’ s descending .
They weren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrived , when they had an opportunity to do so ( especially during 2017-18 ) , and they ’ re not serious now about averting an economic catastrophe that ’ ll unfurl this winter if they don ’ t act .
They were too timid about standing up to Trump on the size of government before and they ’ re too aggressive about it now .
Their instincts are simply terrible .
And their priorities , placing their ideological “ branding ” above what the moment calls for in terms of governance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate .
Let Lindsey Graham spend the next six years clucking disingenuously about spending as a Fox News contributor .
I ’ ll leave you with this comment from a few days ago , just to illustrate the degree of insulting nonsense that ’ s being fed to Trump right now .
On the one hand , people like Johnson are lying to him in insisting that Republican voters will be unhappy if there ’ s a big new stimulus .
On the other hand , supply-siders like Kudlow are assuring him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they ’ re finally getting to work for themselves or whatever .
It ’ s amazing that Trump ’ s instincts from 2016 are still well enough intact to encourage him to ignore both and push for a big deal with Pelosi regardless .
Update : This would be understandable if Trump were up big in the polls and Senate Republicans were about to build on their majority : Under those circumstances , McConnell might reason that the GOP ’ s leverage over a deal with Pelosi was about to get much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality , it ’ s probably going to get weaker , which almost certainly means there ’ ll be no deal during the lame duck .
It ’ s inexcusable .
They deserve to lose .

Five days ago he announced that he wouldn’t hold a vote on a deal between the White House and Democrats. The price tag, in the ballpark of $1.8 trillion, was too high for his caucus. It was a nonstarter.
Today he’s telling reporters that, sure, they’ll look at it. How come? What changed?
I have theories.
McConnell on Senate considering a possible COVID-19 relief deal: "If a Presidentially-supported bill clears the House, at some point we'll bring to the floor, yes." — Craig Caplan (@CraigCaplan) October 20, 2020
McConnell confirmed he would put on the Senate floor any deal reached between Pelosi and administration on the stimulus. But he would NOT say when I asked if he was comfortable with a price tag around $1.8T or $2T-plus as Trump is pushing. He said Senate would “consider” a deal — Manu Raju (@mkraju) October 20, 2020
Theory one: Today is Pelosi’s deadline for a deal, with she and Steve Mnuchin holding final talks to see if they can get something done. Maybe McConnell’s been given a heads-up by the White House that the two sides are still too far apart and there’s likely to be no deal, in which case he’s now free to position his caucus as perfectly open-minded about a big stimulus for PR purposes. “Sure, sure, of course we’re willing to consider a $2 trillion package. Just as soon as Pelosi agrees to it.” It’d be a costless bit of spin — if in fact talks are about to collapse and Pelosi’s serious about her deadline.
Theory two: Maybe Trump threatened McConnell and his caucus behind the scenes. The president has less sway over Senate Republicans today than he’s had in the past thanks to his weak polling against Biden, but he’s not without leverage. He showed over the weekend that he’s willing to make an example of critics like Ben Sasse, which must have sent a shiver through Sasse’s colleagues knowing that Trump will retain influence over the GOP base next year regardless of what happens next month. Getting a stimulus deal has become an urgent and understandable — and *very* belated — pre-election priority for Trump. Conceivably he warned Cocaine Mitch that if he doesn’t back him up on a bill, he’ll start calling out Senate Republicans by name for not working harder to get it passed. Which could be ruinous to incumbents like Joni Ernst and Susan Collins in tight races.
Theory three: McConnell’s seen the polling.
Part of the shift away from Mr. Trump on the economy may stem from voters’ urgent hunger for new relief spending from the federal government — which Mr. Trump has nominally endorsed but which he has not sought actively to extract from congressional Republicans. Seven in 10 voters, including more than half of Republicans, said they wanted to see a new multitrillion-dollar stimulus program that includes government support for citizens and emergency help for state and local governments. There is also widespread public support for a $2 trillion renewable energy and infrastructure package that Mr. Biden has proposed as a form of economic stimulus.
Out of eight policy proposals polled by the Times, including a public option for ObamaCare and a national mask mandate, the most popular one was a new coronavirus stimulus. The public split 72/21 in favor overall; not a single demographic group opposed the idea, with even Republicans supporting it at a 56 percent clip. Fiscal conservatives like Ron Johnson have been running around pretending like it’s 2010 and that their base is still a group of angry government-shrinking tea partiers: “A massive bill is a base killer,” he told the WSJ recently. “At some point in time, people will wonder: why are we voting for Republicans?…Or why vote at all?” Imagine pushing horsesh*t like that knowing (1) the public overwhelmingly supports a big stimulus, (2) Republican voters also support a big stimulus, (3) Trump walloped a field of 15 small-government conservatives in the 2016 primary by not bothering with tea-party dogma, and (4) Trump, who’s now pushing a big stimulus, has near-universal support among Republicans right now ahead of Election Day.
If Senate Republicans want to posture as deficit hawks again in preparation for a Biden presidency, despite having revealed themselves to be utter frauds on that subject over the past four years, that’s one thing. But putting it off on Republican voters by fretting about some imaginary revolt of the base is an insult to one’s intelligence. You want to vote no on the stimulus? Go ahead — but own your vote. Don’t tell Republicans that you’re only doing what they want you to do. You aren’t.
How about this poll? The economy was Trump’s strongest issue as president, even after the pandemic started. Then the stimulus money started to run out:
To my amazement, with the economy teetering and Trump’s presidency hanging by a thread, John Thune told reporters yesterday that he’s doubtful they could find even 13 Republican votes in the Senate for a compromise bill supported by both Trump and Pelosi. That’s less than a quarter of the caucus. That’s all they’d need to pass it with all Democrats voting yes. But the votes aren’t there, Thune claims:
Republicans’ “natural instinct, depending on how big it is, and what’s in it, is probably going to be to be against it,” said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.). “I think we’re going to have a hard time finding 13 votes for anything.”… Some GOP senators have also warned it would damper enthusiasm for Republicans at the ballot box, while Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) simply said Monday that $1.8 trillion or more is “way too high.” “It would divide Republicans if it’s anything like the kind of contours we hear about,” said Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), a fiscal conservative.
If they can’t get 13 votes, they’re not fit to govern. That’s not a “Never Trump” view — Trump’s actually trying to get this done! — it’s a simple reflection of the fact that Republicans aren’t taking seriously the magnitude of the economic crisis that’s descending. They weren’t serious about cutting spending before COVID arrived, when they had an opportunity to do so (especially during 2017-18), and they’re not serious now about averting an economic catastrophe that’ll unfurl this winter if they don’t act. They were too timid about standing up to Trump on the size of government before and they’re too aggressive about it now. Their instincts are simply terrible. And their priorities, placing their ideological “branding” above what the moment calls for in terms of governance, are appalling. They deserve to lose the Senate. Let Lindsey Graham spend the next six years clucking disingenuously about spending as a Fox News contributor.
I’ll leave you with this comment from a few days ago, just to illustrate the degree of insulting nonsense that’s being fed to Trump right now. On the one hand, people like Johnson are lying to him in insisting that Republican voters will be unhappy if there’s a big new stimulus. On the other hand, supply-siders like Kudlow are assuring him that many laid-off Americans will be okay because they’re finally getting to work for themselves or whatever. It’s amazing that Trump’s instincts from 2016 are still well enough intact to encourage him to ignore both and push for a big deal with Pelosi regardless.
White House's Larry Kudlow today with a line new to me: "The talk is that a lot of folks who became unemployed, most regrettably, they're sticking with it & going out and starting new businesses. … That's the great part of American capitalism — gales of creative destruction" — Jeff Stein (@JStein_WaPo) October 16, 2020
Update: This would be understandable if Trump were up big in the polls and Senate Republicans were about to build on their majority:
NEW: @senatemajldr McConnell told his members in a closed door lunch that he told the White House not to agree to a COVID deal with Speaker Pelosi ahead of the election, according to three sources familiar W/ @JulieNBCNews 1st reported by @ericawerner and @JStein_WaPo — Leigh Ann Caldwell (@LACaldwellDC) October 20, 2020
Under those circumstances, McConnell might reason that the GOP’s leverage over a deal with Pelosi was about to get much stronger two weeks from now. In reality, it’s probably going to get weaker, which almost certainly means there’ll be no deal during the lame duck. It’s inexcusable. They deserve to lose.


hotair--2020-10-20--Facebook pulls down Babylon Bee joke about Sen. Hirono on grounds that it 'incites violence'

A few days ago , Facebook decided to stop the spread of a story on their site .
No , I ’ m not talking about the NY Post story on Hunter Biden but something else .
A story that Facebook was worried could incite violence .
What is this nefarious story you ask ?
It ’ s this : The Babylon Bee is a comedy/satire site that routinely pokes fun at elected officials .
In this case , by borrowing an old bit from Monty Python : WASHINGTON , D.C.—After two days of Amy Coney Barrett gracefully and stoically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes , suspicions grew on Capitol Hill that she might be a practitioner of the dark arts .
“ Oh , she ’ s a witch alright , just look at her !
” said Senator Hirono .
“ Just look at the way she ’ s dressed and how she ’ s so much prettier and smarter than us !
She ’ s in league with Beelzebub himself , I just know it !
We must burn her !
” On Saturday the Babylon Bee ’ s Editor-in-Chief announced on Twitter that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a duck had been removed from Facebook for “ violating our Community Standards ” : Facebook also limited the Bee ’ s ability to monetize its content on the site : The Bee asked for a review of the ruling against them and today CEO Seth Dillon announced that Facebook had decided to stand by their decision to pull the story on the grounds that it “ incites violence.
” The Bee was asked to edit the content .
Dillon pointed out that this decision doesn ’ t make much sense given the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Facebook .
The Bee is not going to comply with requests to edit the content .
The original post is only five short paragraphs .
The only violence described is the satirical threat to burn Judge Barrett for being a witch .
Is that the violence Facebook thinks is being incited here ?
Does the social media site really think this call back to an old Monty Python skit could incite violence ?
Who do they think is going to take this story about Sen. Hirono and a duck seriously ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feels this mockery of Sen. Hirono could incite violence against her .
But there ’ s literally nothing in the post that suggests anyone should respond with anything but laughter .
It would be easy to brush this off as a minor dust-up on social media .
But given what Facebook and Twitter did with the NY Post story , this is part of a worrisome trend .
In the case of the Post story , it was clear that both Facebook and Twitter were casting around for an excuse to block the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the content might be fake news but never explained what those signals were or where they came from .
For all we know the signals came from the Biden camp .
Even the Washington Post saw a problem with the vague way the rules were applied .
The Bee has been annoying people on the left for years now .
I first wrote about Snopes writing fact-checks about the Bee ’ s satirical content back in 2018 .
It turns out CNN did not buy industrial-sized washing machines to spin news before publication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
But it turned out Snopes fact-checkers weren ’ t done and fact checked them again .
The second time , the Bee hired attorneys who told Snopes to knock it off .
But the absurd notion of fact-checking jokes has continued .
In September USA Today fact-checked a Bee story that said the 9th Circuit had overturned the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
It turns out that didn ’ t happen .
Thanks , USA Today !
Ultimately this Babylon Bee joke/story doesn ’ t matter .
The content isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook ’ s decision to block it , as if it were a threat , is so absurd .
What ’ s worrisome here is Facebook ’ s attempt to demonetize the Babylon Bee over a joke .
You get the impression that reasonable justifications don ’ t really matter much to Facebook .
What matters is shutting down content that upsets people on the left using whatever lame excuse they can come up with .

A few days ago, Facebook decided to stop the spread of a story on their site. No, I’m not talking about the NY Post story on Hunter Biden but something else. A story that Facebook was worried could incite violence. What is this nefarious story you ask? It’s this:
Senator Hirono Demands ACB Be Weighed Against A Duck To See If She Is A Witch https://t.co/nRjiG0kNRI — The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) October 14, 2020
The Babylon Bee is a comedy/satire site that routinely pokes fun at elected officials. In this case, by borrowing an old bit from Monty Python:
WASHINGTON, D.C.—After two days of Amy Coney Barrett gracefully and stoically answering questions with perfect recall and no notes, suspicions grew on Capitol Hill that she might be a practitioner of the dark arts. “Oh, she’s a witch alright, just look at her!” said Senator Hirono. “Just look at the way she’s dressed and how she’s so much prettier and smarter than us! She’s in league with Beelzebub himself, I just know it! We must burn her!”
On Saturday the Babylon Bee’s Editor-in-Chief announced on Twitter that the silly gag about Sen. Hirono and a duck had been removed from Facebook for “violating our Community Standards”:
Facebook seems to have deleted @TheBabylonBee's post saying Senator Hirono wanted to weigh ACB against a duck for "violating our Community Standards." We requested a review but they haven't gotten back to us. pic.twitter.com/GWW5c4veCV — Kyle Mann, boop/bop/beep (@The_Kyle_Mann) October 17, 2020
Facebook also limited the Bee’s ability to monetize its content on the site:
Social media companies have full, unilateral control over whether a website lives or dies at the push of a button. That's why we decided to become reader-supported — and we're deeply thankful for each of you who subscribes.https://t.co/uOhLOE5NPl — Kyle Mann, boop/bop/beep (@The_Kyle_Mann) October 17, 2020
The Bee asked for a review of the ruling against them and today CEO Seth Dillon announced that Facebook had decided to stand by their decision to pull the story on the grounds that it “incites violence.” The Bee was asked to edit the content.
In what universe does a fictional quote as part of an obvious joke constitute a genuine incitement to violence? How does context not come into play here? They're asking us to edit the article and not speak publicly about internal content reviews. Oops, did I just tweet this? — Seth Dillon (@SethDillon) October 20, 2020
Dillon pointed out that this decision doesn’t make much sense given the sort of thing that is routinely allowed on Facebook. The Bee is not going to comply with requests to edit the content.
We will not be editing the article to get our page's monetization reinstated. We will, however, be talking to the media about this. Send your inquiries my way: [email protected] — Seth Dillon (@SethDillon) October 20, 2020
The original post is only five short paragraphs. The only violence described is the satirical threat to burn Judge Barrett for being a witch. Is that the violence Facebook thinks is being incited here? Does the social media site really think this call back to an old Monty Python skit could incite violence? Who do they think is going to take this story about Sen. Hirono and a duck seriously?
The other possibility I guess is that Facebook feels this mockery of Sen. Hirono could incite violence against her. But there’s literally nothing in the post that suggests anyone should respond with anything but laughter.
It would be easy to brush this off as a minor dust-up on social media. But given what Facebook and Twitter did with the NY Post story, this is part of a worrisome trend. In the case of the Post story, it was clear that both Facebook and Twitter were casting around for an excuse to block the content. Facebook said it had signals the content might be fake news but never explained what those signals were or where they came from. For all we know the signals came from the Biden camp. Even the Washington Post saw a problem with the vague way the rules were applied.
The Bee has been annoying people on the left for years now. I first wrote about Snopes writing fact-checks about the Bee’s satirical content back in 2018. It turns out CNN did not buy industrial-sized washing machines to spin news before publication. Thanks for the insight, Snopes! But it turned out Snopes fact-checkers weren’t done and fact checked them again. The second time, the Bee hired attorneys who told Snopes to knock it off. But the absurd notion of fact-checking jokes has continued. In September USA Today fact-checked a Bee story that said the 9th Circuit had overturned the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It turns out that didn’t happen. Thanks, USA Today!
Ultimately this Babylon Bee joke/story doesn’t matter. The content isn’t important. That’s why Facebook’s decision to block it, as if it were a threat, is so absurd. What’s worrisome here is Facebook’s attempt to demonetize the Babylon Bee over a joke. You get the impression that reasonable justifications don’t really matter much to Facebook. What matters is shutting down content that upsets people on the left using whatever lame excuse they can come up with.


hotair--2020-10-20--Hmmm: Russia backs down, agrees to Trump's terms on nuke-pact extension

Curious timing , and equally curious strategy .
With just two weeks remaining before the US presidential election , Vladimir Putin could have run out the clock on Donald Trump to get a better deal from Joe Biden on the New START pact .
The Trump administration refused to extend it unless Russia agreed to cover battlefield nukes as part of the freeze .
Russia resisted , and instead on Friday just offered a one-year extension on the previous terms only .
Today Moscow reversed itself and agreed to accept the one-year extension with the broader cap , a foreign-policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Tuesday it ’ s ready to accept a U.S. proposal to freeze the number of nuclear warheads and extend the two nations ’ last arms control pact for one year and Washington responded that it ’ s prepared to make a quick deal .
… The statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry marked a shift in Moscow ’ s position after Russia and the U.S. rejected each other ’ s offers regarding the New START treaty that expires in February .
… Russia has offered its extension without any conditions , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushed for a new arms control agreement that would also include China .
It recently modified its stance and proposed a one-year extension of the 2010 treaty , but said this must be coupled with the imposition of a broader cap on U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads .
The cap would cover warheads attached to battlefield weapons , which are limited by the New START treaty that only restricts strategic nuclear arsenals .
Russia has agreed to a one-year extension but resisted a broader cap on warheads until Tuesday .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work on battlefield nuclear missiles is what caused Trump to pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty last year , and refuse to re-up New START until it covered those weapons systems .
Putin had been bragging about a new hypersonic nuclear missile system immediately after the INF withdrawal , which NATO called “ Skyfall.
” That bragging stopped in August 2019 when Russia had some kind of nuclear accident that was almost certainly related to Skyfall development .
The accident contaminated a significant area on the White Sea , about which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ever since , Russia has tried to cover its tracks on Skyfall , and we ’ ve heard very little about Putin ’ s pet project ever since .
In that context , it might make sense for Putin to agree to these terms , since their own battlefield nuclear weapons development had just gone Chernobyl on them .
But that was true on Friday , and for a while before that , too — and yet Putin resisted it until today .
And it ’ s not like Putin didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pat until after the election either , since Biden had already declared that he ’ d extent the original agreement on strategic nukes only for five years : We ’ re two weeks out now for Putin to find out which president will negotiate which deal .
Why act now and commit for a full year ?
Even better , why set the precedent now to cover the battlefield nuclear systems when Biden would have given Putin a pass over it ?
The Trump administration doesn ’ t mind taking the win , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a foreign policy debate on Thursday night .
No doubt Trump will use this as an example of how he ’ s actually been tougher on Russia in regard to policy than Barack Obama or Biden had been in eight years of dealing with Putin , and not without some justification .
Putin has to know this too , which makes this even more curious .
Either Putin figures Trump will win re-election so handily that it ’ s worth cutting a deal now , or he saw something from the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that made him nervous .
Was that the point of this leak to Woodward ?

Curious timing, and equally curious strategy. With just two weeks remaining before the US presidential election, Vladimir Putin could have run out the clock on Donald Trump to get a better deal from Joe Biden on the New START pact. The Trump administration refused to extend it unless Russia agreed to cover battlefield nukes as part of the freeze. Russia resisted, and instead on Friday just offered a one-year extension on the previous terms only.
Today Moscow reversed itself and agreed to accept the one-year extension with the broader cap, a foreign-policy win by the Trump administration:
Russia said Tuesday it’s ready to accept a U.S. proposal to freeze the number of nuclear warheads and extend the two nations’ last arms control pact for one year and Washington responded that it’s prepared to make a quick deal. … The statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry marked a shift in Moscow’s position after Russia and the U.S. rejected each other’s offers regarding the New START treaty that expires in February. … Russia has offered its extension without any conditions, while President Donald Trump’s administration initially pushed for a new arms control agreement that would also include China. It recently modified its stance and proposed a one-year extension of the 2010 treaty, but said this must be coupled with the imposition of a broader cap on U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads. The cap would cover warheads attached to battlefield weapons, which are limited by the New START treaty that only restricts strategic nuclear arsenals. Russia has agreed to a one-year extension but resisted a broader cap on warheads until Tuesday.
That’s no small concession. Russia’s work on battlefield nuclear missiles is what caused Trump to pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty last year, and refuse to re-up New START until it covered those weapons systems. Putin had been bragging about a new hypersonic nuclear missile system immediately after the INF withdrawal, which NATO called “Skyfall.” That bragging stopped in August 2019 when Russia had some kind of nuclear accident that was almost certainly related to Skyfall development. The accident contaminated a significant area on the White Sea, about which Moscow has never explained or warned. Ever since, Russia has tried to cover its tracks on Skyfall, and we’ve heard very little about Putin’s pet project ever since.
In that context, it might make sense for Putin to agree to these terms, since their own battlefield nuclear weapons development had just gone Chernobyl on them. But that was true on Friday, and for a while before that, too — and yet Putin resisted it until today. And it’s not like Putin didn’t think he could better-deal Trump by standing pat until after the election either, since Biden had already declared that he’d extent the original agreement on strategic nukes only for five years:
The treaty includes a clause that allows the leaders of both nations to extend the agreement by five years without requiring ratification. Both Putin and Biden have said they would agree to the five-year extension. In an interview with state television earlier this month, Putin said Biden’s willingness to prolong New START “is a serious signal for our possible future interaction.”
We’re two weeks out now for Putin to find out which president will negotiate which deal. Why act now and commit for a full year? Even better, why set the precedent now to cover the battlefield nuclear systems when Biden would have given Putin a pass over it?
The Trump administration doesn’t mind taking the win, especially ahead of what was supposed to be a foreign policy debate on Thursday night. No doubt Trump will use this as an example of how he’s actually been tougher on Russia in regard to policy than Barack Obama or Biden had been in eight years of dealing with Putin, and not without some justification. Putin has to know this too, which makes this even more curious. Either Putin figures Trump will win re-election so handily that it’s worth cutting a deal now, or he saw something from the US side on development of a Skyfall competitor that made him nervous. Was that the point of this leak to Woodward?