hotair--2020-07-01--Trump: I'll veto any bill that renames military bases to remove Confederacy references

Why does Donald Trump have such a loyal base ?
He fights , his supporters will say , which is a good quality — most of the time .
It depends on the fights he picks , however , and the battle to salvage Confederate history might end up being his Pickett ’ s Charge .
Trump tweeted out a veto threat overnight about the new defense authorization bill , specifically objecting to a provision with bipartisan support that would require renaming military bases for people other than those who took up arms against the United States .
In fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight that he retweeted it seven hours later : CNN picked up on this threat this morning , casting it as one would expect : President Donald Trump in a late Tuesday night tweet issued his strongest veto threat yet on a must-pass defense spending bill should lawmakers not strip language requiring bases named after Confederate leaders be rechristened .
Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts proposed requiring the bases be renamed as a part of the annual defense authorization bill .
The legislation funds the Pentagon and is often one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be counted on to pass each year in order to fund the country ’ s military operations .
However , Trump — using an offensive nickname for Warren — has now made the bill the latest flashpoint in his defense of monuments to the Confederacy and other racist leaders from the country ’ s past as he attempts to distract from a new nationwide peak in coronavirus cases and his own plummeting poll numbers .
It seems unlikely that Trump is using his defense of Confederate iconography as a distraction from anything .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more likely that his team would use those issues to distract from the weird fight Trump has picked in this case .
He ’ s going to wind up fighting alone , or nearly so , because the bill he ’ s threatening has significant Republican support .
It never would have made it out of Senate committee without it , in fact , and the military leadership Trump himself appointed are supporting it as well : Nonetheless , the Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee approved an amendment to its version of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
that would force the Pentagon to remove names , monuments and paraphernalia honoring the Confederacy from military bases over the next three years .
Senior military leaders including Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy also expressed openness to renaming the 10 Army bases and facilities named after Confederate leaders , but encountered opposition from the president , who tweeted that his administration “ will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations.
” What exactly is Trump defending here ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ against mob actions to tear down statues from public squares , even those of Confederate figures .
We have democratic and representative processes in place to deal with those public-policy issues .
The placement and maintenance of statues and monuments are matters of public policy , not just the whims of mobs who express arbitrary offense .
But that ’ s precisely what has happened with the NDAA .
The public policy of maintaining places of honor for men who took up arms against the US — at military bases , no less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the representation of American voters .
A bipartisan coalition would like to rename those bases rather than continue to honor a rebellion that was motivated by the desire to maintain and expand slavery as a grotesque agricultural product .
It ’ s worth asking why those bases got those names in the first place , given that history , but at least the decision to rename them followed the right process and promotes the rule of law .
Trump is offering the defense of tradition rather than attempting to defend the Confederacy itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of history .
However , renaming Forts Benning and Lee wouldn ’ t erase anything except their names from places of honor their rebellion didn ’ t earn .
It doesn ’ t matter whether decades of men and women trained from those bases ; renaming them won ’ t change that either anyway .
Tradition is not always good or healthy , and the tolerance of Lost Cause nonsense about the Confederacy is one of our country ’ s unhealthiest traditions .
Politically , this is about as dumb as it gets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symbology will always have emotional baggage of racism and oppression , because that ’ s what the Confederacy was and what its symbology represented — and not just during the Civil War , but for a century afterward too .
That ’ s not exactly a great look in an election year , not for Trump and not for his Republican allies .
One can blame the media for hyping that aspect of it , but the media-bias argument only goes so far in explaining it .
Trump seems almost deliberate in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this battle .
It ’ s great to have a fighter in the White House .
It would be much better if Trump chose his fights more wisely .

Why does Donald Trump have such a loyal base? He fights, his supporters will say, which is a good quality — most of the time. It depends on the fights he picks, however, and the battle to salvage Confederate history might end up being his Pickett’s Charge. Trump tweeted out a veto threat overnight about the new defense authorization bill, specifically objecting to a provision with bipartisan support that would require renaming military bases for people other than those who took up arms against the United States.
In fact, Trump feels so strongly about this fight that he retweeted it seven hours later:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1278176059876401152
CNN picked up on this threat this morning, casting it as one would expect:
President Donald Trump in a late Tuesday night tweet issued his strongest veto threat yet on a must-pass defense spending bill should lawmakers not strip language requiring bases named after Confederate leaders be rechristened. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts proposed requiring the bases be renamed as a part of the annual defense authorization bill. The legislation funds the Pentagon and is often one of the few pieces of legislation that Congress can be counted on to pass each year in order to fund the country’s military operations. However, Trump — using an offensive nickname for Warren — has now made the bill the latest flashpoint in his defense of monuments to the Confederacy and other racist leaders from the country’s past as he attempts to distract from a new nationwide peak in coronavirus cases and his own plummeting poll numbers.
It seems unlikely that Trump is using his defense of Confederate iconography as a distraction from anything. In fact, it’d be more likely that his team would use those issues to distract from the weird fight Trump has picked in this case. He’s going to wind up fighting alone, or nearly so, because the bill he’s threatening has significant Republican support. It never would have made it out of Senate committee without it, in fact, and the military leadership Trump himself appointed are supporting it as well:
Nonetheless, the Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee approved an amendment to its version of the National Defense Authorization Act proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that would force the Pentagon to remove names, monuments and paraphernalia honoring the Confederacy from military bases over the next three years. Senior military leaders including Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy also expressed openness to renaming the 10 Army bases and facilities named after Confederate leaders, but encountered opposition from the president, who tweeted that his administration “will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations.”
What exactly is Trump defending here? He’s correct in pushing back against mob actions to tear down statues from public squares, even those of Confederate figures. We have democratic and representative processes in place to deal with those public-policy issues. The placement and maintenance of statues and monuments are matters of public policy, not just the whims of mobs who express arbitrary offense.
But that’s precisely what has happened with the NDAA. The public policy of maintaining places of honor for men who took up arms against the US — at military bases, no less — has been considered by Congress, the representation of American voters. A bipartisan coalition would like to rename those bases rather than continue to honor a rebellion that was motivated by the desire to maintain and expand slavery as a grotesque agricultural product. It’s worth asking why those bases got those names in the first place, given that history, but at least the decision to rename them followed the right process and promotes the rule of law.
Trump is offering the defense of tradition rather than attempting to defend the Confederacy itself. He also objects to the erasing of history. However, renaming Forts Benning and Lee wouldn’t erase anything except their names from places of honor their rebellion didn’t earn. It doesn’t matter whether decades of men and women trained from those bases; renaming them won’t change that either anyway. Tradition is not always good or healthy, and the tolerance of Lost Cause nonsense about the Confederacy is one of our country’s unhealthiest traditions.
Politically, this is about as dumb as it gets, too. A defense of Confederate symbology will always have emotional baggage of racism and oppression, because that’s what the Confederacy was and what its symbology represented — and not just during the Civil War, but for a century afterward too. That’s not exactly a great look in an election year, not for Trump and not for his Republican allies. One can blame the media for hyping that aspect of it, but the media-bias argument only goes so far in explaining it. Trump seems almost deliberate in his choice to take the losing end of this battle.
It’s great to have a fighter in the White House. It would be much better if Trump chose his fights more wisely.


hotair--2020-07-01--Rumor du jour: A conservative SCOTUS justice might be retiring soon

No , not Roberts .
Sorry to disappoint .
Conservative lawyers are shaking their heads on social media , reminding friends that we go through this every year .
It ’ s practically a summer ritual .
How many times did we do the “ Is this it for Kennedy ?
” routine before Kennedy finally decided to throw in the towel ?
But there ’ s reason to think this year is different .
2020 is different in every other way .
Why should SCOTUS be an exception ?
Hmmm !
The Post report to which Costa refers is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Alito — or Clarence Thomas — might be about to pack it in .
There are also ongoing discussions between Trump advisers and conservative leaders about the possibility of a Supreme Court vacancy in the coming months — a tantalizing prospect for Republicans who value the court above all other issues and are eager to have Trump have one more opportunity to nominate a justice before the election .
Justice Clarence Thomas , a conservative appointed by George H.W .
Bush , is privately seen by Trump ’ s aides as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While Thomas has not given any indication of doing so , the White House and Senate Republicans are quietly preparing for a possible opening , according to a White House official and two outside Trump political advisers who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private conversations .
“ If Thomas goes , you ’ ve got a lot of people around this process ready to support Thapar — and McConnell ready to move his favorite through , ” said one of the outside Trump political advisers , referring to Judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Appeals for the 6th Circuit .
Are Republicans “ quietly preparing for a possible opening ” out of an abundance of caution , so that they ’ re ready just in case Thomas or Alito shocks the world ?
Or are they preparing because Thomas or Alito has let it be known privately that they should prepare ?
Coincidentally , CNN also has a report out this morning about the president ’ s fond hope that he ’ ll have a seat to fill soon : It ’ s an alluring prospect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base but also provide an opportunity to improve his standing among those voters whose support he is now hemorrhaging , people familiar with Trump ’ s thinking said… As President , Trump has cultivated a relationship with Clarence Thomas , who turned 72 last week and is the court ’ s most senior associate justice .
He has invited Thomas and his wife Ginni to join him and the First Lady for dinner in the White House residence and has sent birthday wishes in past years .
The Thomases were invited to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last September .
An increasing number of former law clerks to Thomas have been appointed by Trump to top US courts… Even to some inside the White House , the relationship between Trump and the Thomases has been the subject of speculation .
Some aides have privately wondered whether Trump ’ s courtship of the pair was motivated by some political ends , like orchestrating a conveniently-timed retirement .
Maybe there ’ s nothing to any of it .
The Court ’ s term is ending ; inevitably the media will turn to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to them than the prospect of a partisan nuclear war over a SCOTUS vacancy with an election four months away and Trump fighting for his political life against the pandemic and civil unrest ?
But look at it from the perspective of Thomas or Alito .
The political world has been upended over the last three months .
In February Trump was no worse than a 50/50 gamble on reelection — probably higher given that Bernie Sanders looked like the presumptive Democratic nominee .
Five months later Trump is a heavy underdog against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conservative justices now facing the prospect of having to serve four more years on the Court or else resign themselves to a Democratic president appointing their successor .
Liberals have spent the last four years groaning that Ruth Bader Ginsburg , whose health remains fragile , should have taken one for the team and retired while Obama was in office .
Now she ’ s stuck having to tough it out until January — and if Trump pulls an unexpected comeback in November , she ’ ll likely have no choice but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before 2024 .
Thomas and Alito are suddenly at risk of finding themselves in that same boat next year .
Senate Republicans have been worried about it for awhile too .
In mid-March , when the GOP was in a much better position politically than it is today , McConnell and his team reached out to older federal judges to warn them that if they had any inclination towards retirement , now was the time .
Lindsey Graham made that same pitch publicly in an interview on Hewitt ’ s show in late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] f you ’ re a circuit judge in your mid-60s , late 60s , you can take senior status , now would be a good time to do that , if you want to make sure the judiciary is right of center.
” The smart play for a conservative judge who wants his or her seat controlled by a conservative for years to come is to quit now and let Trump and McConnell confirm a successor before January .
That logic applies even more forcefully to Thomas and Alito .
And they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative vacancy should help the GOP electorally but probably not as much as they did in 2016 .
McConnell ’ s obviously not going to hold open a newly vacant seat pending the outcome of the election as he did with Scalia ’ s four years ago .
He ’ s already vowed to fill any opening on the Court before the election , noting repeatedly that the Merrick Garland precedent doesn ’ t apply when the White House and the Senate are controlled by the same party .
( Lindsey Graham has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although two years ago he was singing a different tune . )
If WaPo is right that McConnell favorite Amul Thapar is in line for the next seat then he ’ d have all the more reason to ram the confirmation through .
That should help Trump and the GOP at the polls by giving righties something to cheer for at a moment when cheerworthy news is in short supply .
A partisan bar brawl with Democrats over the Court is good for morale .
And really , anything that changes the subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrations against police brutality can only help Republicans .
But the fact that the seat would be filled before Americans go to vote is a double-edged sword .
In 2016 , of course , Scalia ’ s seat remained open on Election Day , a key incentive in convincing Trump-wary righties to hold their noses and vote for him .
That incentive would be absent this time , and the fact that Trump had managed to fill three seats in just four years — more than any president since Reagan , including two-termers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — might convince some right-leaning independents that he ’ s already done as much on this front as he can reasonably be expected to do .
No need to hand him another four years to remake the Court when he ’ s already done more in that respect than any president this century .
The flaw in that logic is that it seems unlikely Ginsburg and maybe Breyer will insist on staying another four years so Trump would be able to remake the Court further if rewarded with a second term .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the likelihood of a Ginsburg or Breyer retirement is already priced into Trump ’ s political stock and it hasn ’ t stopped him from trailing Biden by 10 points nationally .
Maybe filling a new vacancy before the election would change that by “ reminding ” voters that control of the Court is important , but that works both ways .
It would also remind Biden-wary lefties that they ’ re looking potentially at a 7-2 Trump-dominated conservative SCOTUS majority by the end of 2024 , which may be all the incentive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote for Joe .
And a third Trump appointment may further embolden the liberal nuts who want to pack the Court when they take back Congress , a possibility John Roberts seems worried about given his attempts to appease the left with some key rulings over the past few weeks .
But what a vacancy would mean for Trump ’ s chances is a secondary consideration from Thomas ’ s and Alito ’ s standpoint .
If they don ’ t want to serve for several more years then now ’ s the @ @ @ @

No, not Roberts. Sorry to disappoint.
Conservative lawyers are shaking their heads on social media, reminding friends that we go through this every year. It’s practically a summer ritual. How many times did we do the “Is this it for Kennedy?” routine before Kennedy finally decided to throw in the towel?
But there’s reason to think this year is different. 2020 is different in every other way. Why should SCOTUS be an exception?
After reading my latest Post report, @hughhewitt tells his radio audience this morning that he hears from several leading conservatives that Justice Alito, 70, is considering retirement, and adds that he also hears the Alito family is ready to leave Washington, D.C. — Robert Costa (@costareports) July 1, 2020
Hmmm! The Post report to which Costa refers is this story, which mentioned the possibility that Alito — or Clarence Thomas — might be about to pack it in.
There are also ongoing discussions between Trump advisers and conservative leaders about the possibility of a Supreme Court vacancy in the coming months — a tantalizing prospect for Republicans who value the court above all other issues and are eager to have Trump have one more opportunity to nominate a justice before the election. Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative appointed by George H.W. Bush, is privately seen by Trump’s aides as the most likely to retire this year. While Thomas has not given any indication of doing so, the White House and Senate Republicans are quietly preparing for a possible opening, according to a White House official and two outside Trump political advisers who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private conversations. “If Thomas goes, you’ve got a lot of people around this process ready to support Thapar — and McConnell ready to move his favorite through,” said one of the outside Trump political advisers, referring to Judge Amul R. Thapar of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
Are Republicans “quietly preparing for a possible opening” out of an abundance of caution, so that they’re ready just in case Thomas or Alito shocks the world? Or are they preparing because Thomas or Alito has let it be known privately that they should prepare?
Coincidentally, CNN also has a report out this morning about the president’s fond hope that he’ll have a seat to fill soon:
It’s an alluring prospect Trump believes could galvanize both his loyal base but also provide an opportunity to improve his standing among those voters whose support he is now hemorrhaging, people familiar with Trump’s thinking said… As President, Trump has cultivated a relationship with Clarence Thomas, who turned 72 last week and is the court’s most senior associate justice. He has invited Thomas and his wife Ginni to join him and the First Lady for dinner in the White House residence and has sent birthday wishes in past years. The Thomases were invited to a state dinner held in honor of Australia last September. An increasing number of former law clerks to Thomas have been appointed by Trump to top US courts… Even to some inside the White House, the relationship between Trump and the Thomases has been the subject of speculation. Some aides have privately wondered whether Trump’s courtship of the pair was motivated by some political ends, like orchestrating a conveniently-timed retirement.
Maybe there’s nothing to any of it. The Court’s term is ending; inevitably the media will turn to retirement speculation. What could be juicier to them than the prospect of a partisan nuclear war over a SCOTUS vacancy with an election four months away and Trump fighting for his political life against the pandemic and civil unrest?
But look at it from the perspective of Thomas or Alito. The political world has been upended over the last three months. In February Trump was no worse than a 50/50 gamble on reelection — probably higher given that Bernie Sanders looked like the presumptive Democratic nominee. Five months later Trump is a heavy underdog against the more electable Joe Biden, with the conservative justices now facing the prospect of having to serve four more years on the Court or else resign themselves to a Democratic president appointing their successor. Liberals have spent the last four years groaning that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose health remains fragile, should have taken one for the team and retired while Obama was in office. Now she’s stuck having to tough it out until January — and if Trump pulls an unexpected comeback in November, she’ll likely have no choice but to let him fill her seat sometime before 2024.
Thomas and Alito are suddenly at risk of finding themselves in that same boat next year. Senate Republicans have been worried about it for awhile too. In mid-March, when the GOP was in a much better position politically than it is today, McConnell and his team reached out to older federal judges to warn them that if they had any inclination towards retirement, now was the time. Lindsey Graham made that same pitch publicly in an interview on Hewitt’s show in late May, saying, “[I]f you’re a circuit judge in your mid-60s, late 60s, you can take senior status, now would be a good time to do that, if you want to make sure the judiciary is right of center.” The smart play for a conservative judge who wants his or her seat controlled by a conservative for years to come is to quit now and let Trump and McConnell confirm a successor before January.
That logic applies even more forcefully to Thomas and Alito. And they know it.
The politics of a conservative vacancy should help the GOP electorally but probably not as much as they did in 2016. McConnell’s obviously not going to hold open a newly vacant seat pending the outcome of the election as he did with Scalia’s four years ago. He’s already vowed to fill any opening on the Court before the election, noting repeatedly that the Merrick Garland precedent doesn’t apply when the White House and the Senate are controlled by the same party. (Lindsey Graham has now adopted that view as well, although two years ago he was singing a different tune.) If WaPo is right that McConnell favorite Amul Thapar is in line for the next seat then he’d have all the more reason to ram the confirmation through. That should help Trump and the GOP at the polls by giving righties something to cheer for at a moment when cheerworthy news is in short supply. A partisan bar brawl with Democrats over the Court is good for morale.
And really, anything that changes the subject from COVID-19 and economic pain and mass demonstrations against police brutality can only help Republicans.
But the fact that the seat would be filled before Americans go to vote is a double-edged sword. In 2016, of course, Scalia’s seat remained open on Election Day, a key incentive in convincing Trump-wary righties to hold their noses and vote for him. That incentive would be absent this time, and the fact that Trump had managed to fill three seats in just four years — more than any president since Reagan, including two-termers Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama — might convince some right-leaning independents that he’s already done as much on this front as he can reasonably be expected to do. No need to hand him another four years to remake the Court when he’s already done more in that respect than any president this century.
The flaw in that logic is that it seems unlikely Ginsburg and maybe Breyer will insist on staying another four years so Trump would be able to remake the Court further if rewarded with a second term. But the flaw in that logic is that the likelihood of a Ginsburg or Breyer retirement is already priced into Trump’s political stock and it hasn’t stopped him from trailing Biden by 10 points nationally. Maybe filling a new vacancy before the election would change that by “reminding” voters that control of the Court is important, but that works both ways. It would also remind Biden-wary lefties that they’re looking potentially at a 7-2 Trump-dominated conservative SCOTUS majority by the end of 2024, which may be all the incentive they need to hold their noses and vote for Joe. And a third Trump appointment may further embolden the liberal nuts who want to pack the Court when they take back Congress, a possibility John Roberts seems worried about given his attempts to appease the left with some key rulings over the past few weeks.
But what a vacancy would mean for Trump’s chances is a secondary consideration from Thomas’s and Alito’s standpoint. If they don’t want to serve for several more years then now’s the time to bail.


hotair--2020-07-02--The Mount Rushmore fireworks non-story

The Mount Rushmore fireworks non-story

Yesterday , John covered the renewed liberal interest in getting rid of Mount Rushmore .
But the new hotness today is the pushback against having an Independence Day fireworks display there tomorrow .
It ’ s a show that the President has been pushing for , designed to kickstart some patriotic enthusiasm in a time when more than a third of Americans are showing signs of clinical anxiety or depression .
And since the Bad Orange Man is in favor of it , the usual suspects have to oppose the idea .
In an effort to bolster support for canceling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up Cheryl Schreier for an op-ed .
She served as the Superintendent of the Mount Rushmore National Memorial from early in the Obama administration until she stepped down last year .
She produces a laundry list of reasons for the fireworks show to be canceled , some of which are fair , while others seem rather dubious .
It has been more than 10 years since fireworks were last seen at Mount Rushmore National Memorial .
The fireworks were canceled in 2010 , my first year as superintendent of the memorial , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While such patriotic celebrations were memorable , they also endangered public safety and irreplaceable natural and cultural resources within the national park and surrounding area .
Yet this year , President Trump and his administration , with the support of South Dakota Gov .
Kristi L. Noem , have insisted on resuming the fireworks on July 3 .
And the Interior Department , under Secretary David Bernhardt , is allowing this to happen , overlooking the well-documented danger this event presents .
Schreier was part of the team that oversaw the cancellation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barack Obama was in office and maintained the policy throughout her tenure , so she ’ s somewhat immunized from accusations of taking this position for political purposes .
But the reasons she offers should still be open to scrutiny .
One of her first listed concerns is the possibility of wildfires breaking out as a result of the fireworks .
If this event was taking place in California you would probably share that opinion , but the Black Hills are currently seeing more issues from thunderstorms than any sort of dry spell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that virtually all of the wildfires caused by fireworks are the result of amateurs setting off bottle rockets or other such displays close to the ground .
We are advised that “ the safest way to enjoy fireworks is to attend a public fireworks show put on by professionals.
” Schreier goes on to say that evacuating people in the event of any type of emergency may be difficult because “ the anticipated traffic congestion and gridlock could last for hours.
” But as the author herself points out , attendance is being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attendance in July is more than triple that , at roughly 25,000 tourists per day .
Something doesn ’ t add up here .
She also brings up the issue of ground pollution caused by perchlorates from the fireworks .
I suppose that ’ s a valid concern anywhere you have such displays , but is one evening of fireworks really a major contributing factor ?
I would imagine the more than nine million visitors the park receives annually might be a bigger cause .
Personally , it ’ s hard for me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I could do without fireworks entirely at this point in my life , though I certainly went to see them many times when I was younger .
They frequently take place too late in the evening for my normal sleep cycle and they induce panic in both dogs and cats .
Of course , I don ’ t know how many people are bringing their pets all the way to the Black Hills specifically for a fireworks show anyway .
Meanwhile , Native Americans are calling to have the monument destroyed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ originating in the age of Trump .
It ’ s a fight that ’ s been going on for decades .
I can appreciate that the Lakota nation views those hills as sacred land and their history is filled with plenty of abuse .
A federal court awarded the tribe more than $ 17 million in 1979 to cover their claims over the land , but the tribe turned it down .
And frankly , it just seems impractical to turn around and destroy such an iconic monument at this point .

Yesterday, John covered the renewed liberal interest in getting rid of Mount Rushmore. But the new hotness today is the pushback against having an Independence Day fireworks display there tomorrow. It’s a show that the President has been pushing for, designed to kickstart some patriotic enthusiasm in a time when more than a third of Americans are showing signs of clinical anxiety or depression. And since the Bad Orange Man is in favor of it, the usual suspects have to oppose the idea.
In an effort to bolster support for canceling the celebration, the Washinton Post summons up Cheryl Schreier for an op-ed. She served as the Superintendent of the Mount Rushmore National Memorial from early in the Obama administration until she stepped down last year. She produces a laundry list of reasons for the fireworks show to be canceled, some of which are fair, while others seem rather dubious.
It has been more than 10 years since fireworks were last seen at Mount Rushmore National Memorial. The fireworks were canceled in 2010, my first year as superintendent of the memorial, and they never resumed during my tenure. While such patriotic celebrations were memorable, they also endangered public safety and irreplaceable natural and cultural resources within the national park and surrounding area. Yet this year, President Trump and his administration, with the support of South Dakota Gov. Kristi L. Noem, have insisted on resuming the fireworks on July 3. And the Interior Department, under Secretary David Bernhardt, is allowing this to happen, overlooking the well-documented danger this event presents.
Schreier was part of the team that oversaw the cancellation of the annual fireworks display in 2010 when Barack Obama was in office and maintained the policy throughout her tenure, so she’s somewhat immunized from accusations of taking this position for political purposes. But the reasons she offers should still be open to scrutiny. One of her first listed concerns is the possibility of wildfires breaking out as a result of the fireworks. If this event was taking place in California you would probably share that opinion, but the Black Hills are currently seeing more issues from thunderstorms than any sort of dry spell. Also, the experts tell us that virtually all of the wildfires caused by fireworks are the result of amateurs setting off bottle rockets or other such displays close to the ground. We are advised that “the safest way to enjoy fireworks is to attend a public fireworks show put on by professionals.”
Schreier goes on to say that evacuating people in the event of any type of emergency may be difficult because “the anticipated traffic congestion and gridlock could last for hours.” But as the author herself points out, attendance is being limited to 7,500 ticket-holders. Average park attendance in July is more than triple that, at roughly 25,000 tourists per day. Something doesn’t add up here. She also brings up the issue of ground pollution caused by perchlorates from the fireworks. I suppose that’s a valid concern anywhere you have such displays, but is one evening of fireworks really a major contributing factor? I would imagine the more than nine million visitors the park receives annually might be a bigger cause.
Personally, it’s hard for me to get too excited about this controversy. I could do without fireworks entirely at this point in my life, though I certainly went to see them many times when I was younger. They frequently take place too late in the evening for my normal sleep cycle and they induce panic in both dogs and cats. Of course, I don’t know how many people are bringing their pets all the way to the Black Hills specifically for a fireworks show anyway.
Meanwhile, Native Americans are calling to have the monument destroyed. This isn’t some new controversy originating in the age of Trump. It’s a fight that’s been going on for decades. I can appreciate that the Lakota nation views those hills as sacred land and their history is filled with plenty of abuse. A federal court awarded the tribe more than $17 million in 1979 to cover their claims over the land, but the tribe turned it down. And frankly, it just seems impractical to turn around and destroy such an iconic monument at this point.


hotair--2020-07-01--Study by Italian doctors: The virus has become less lethal at our hospital over time

Via Derek Thompson , I wrote about one of the doctors responsible for this study ( Silvio Belusconi ’ s personal physician , no less ) a month ago when he claimed , provocatively , that the coronavirus “ no longer exists clinically ” in Italy .
He and the other doctors who authored this study work at San Raffaele hospital in Milan , the heart of the country ’ s catastrophic outbreak this past spring .
Where on earth did he get the idea that COVID-19 was losing potency ?
From his hospital ’ s data , it turns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quartiles of 20 days each .
Date of last follow-up was 12 June 2020 .
Minimum follow-up of the last patients hospitalized was 30 days .
A total of 129/950 ( 14 % ) patients required ICU .
Of the 950 patients , 30-day mortality was 164/950 ( 17 % ) , with a dramatic drop in the mortality rate after the first time quartile , decreasing from 24 % to 2 % ( Figure 1 ) .
Age and time of admission were independent predictors of hospital mortality in the multivariate model @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a number of possible reasons that may explain these findings .
In our institution , the proportion of patients requiring ICU decreased over time from 17 % to 7 % , without significant changes in patients ’ age , suggesting a decreased severity of clinical presentation and progression .
If you were admitted to the ICU at San Raffaele with COVID-19 in the first half of March , you had a one in four chance of dying .
If you were admitted in the first half of May , you had a one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But is that something related to the virus itself or to better care by the hospital as doctors came to recognize which treatments worked and which didn ’ t ?
The authors mention that as one possible explanation along with several others , ranging from the social distancing effect of the lockdowns to the fact that that distancing also limited co-infections by the flu to even the possibility that lower air pollution due to the reduced traffic has improved patients ’ health .
The flu theory is especially interesting : What if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it weakens the body and makes it susceptible to failure from ordinary everyday flu that we ’ d otherwise shake off ?
That ’ s a possibility worth exploring further .
Whatever the explanation , we ’ re now a month on from the claim that the virus “ no longer exists clinically ” in Italy .
Annnnnd that claim is looking stronger than we might have guessed a month ago : The curve for daily cases looks much the same .
Like New Yorkers , Italians went through hell but they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the virus momentarily in full retreat .
And that ’ s despite the fact that Italy began easing lockdown restrictions at the start of June .
Whether because of stringent voluntary social distancing or because the virus there really has lost something , Italy ’ s thus far avoided the fate of the U.S. in experiencing a resurgent first wave .
There ’ s no hard evidence I ’ m aware of that the virus has mutated into something less lethal , although there is evidence that it ’ s mutated into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WaPo story yesterday in posing a question : Is it possible that the new , more infectious strain of SARS-CoV-2 that doctors think is taking over the world might also be less deadly than the original version ?
Americans are watching in horror as the case counts here climb each day , only to be left scratching their heads at the fact that deaths aren ’ t similarly rising .
A more infectious yet less deadly strain of the disease would explain that .
But there are other possibilities .
WaPo floated this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and deaths in Italy had dropped precipitously : Zangrillo ’ s clinical observations are more likely a reflection of the fact that with the peak of the outbreak long past , there is less virus in circulation , and people may be less likely to be exposed to high doses of it .
In addition , only severely sick people were likely to be tested early on , compared with the situation now when even those with mild symptoms are more likely to get swabbed , experts said… “ The virus hasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of two months , ” said Andrew Noymer , an epidemiologist at the University of California at Irvine .
“ Loss of function is something I expect over a time scale of years.
” It may not be the virus itself is weaker .
It may simply be that Italians are encountering less of it in their daily interactions .
*If* it ’ s true that there ’ s a certain threshold viral load beyond which COVID-19 transforms from a nasty but manageable bug into a life-threatening illness then crushing the curve may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locals .
Not only will they be less likely to get infected , they may be less likely to die if they are infected .
What about the global picture , though ?
This graph represents deaths from the disease across the world .
There ’ s been very little change since mid-May , although of course there are different hot spots now than there were then : That ’ s proof that the virus *isn ’ t* weakening , right ?
Well , hold on .
Here ’ s the graph of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : We have roughly the same number of deaths then and now … but twice the number of cases today .
Hmmm !
There are obvious caveats there , starting with the fact that no one really knows if Russia or Brazil , let alone China , is reporting their data accurately .
And for what it ’ s worth , deaths have begun to rise slightly in some American hot spots lately , which may be the start of an ominous trend : But it ’ s plausible that something has changed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduce the risk of death from SARS-CoV-2 .
I ’ ll leave you with this quote by an expert at the University of Pittsburgh from WaPo ’ s story last month , as it seems like the most probable explanation : “ I believe it ’ s safe to say that the differences that doctors are reporting in Italy are entirely due to changes to medical treatment and in human behavior , which limit transmission and numbers of new infections initiated by large inocula — a larger dose of virus appears to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus itself .
”

Via Derek Thompson, I wrote about one of the doctors responsible for this study (Silvio Belusconi’s personal physician, no less) a month ago when he claimed, provocatively, that the coronavirus “no longer exists clinically” in Italy. He and the other doctors who authored this study work at San Raffaele hospital in Milan, the heart of the country’s catastrophic outbreak this past spring. Where on earth did he get the idea that COVID-19 was losing potency?
From his hospital’s data, it turns out:
Patients are divided into temporal quartiles of 20 days each. Date of last follow-up was 12 June 2020. Minimum follow-up of the last patients hospitalized was 30 days. A total of 129/950 (14%) patients required ICU. Of the 950 patients, 30-day mortality was 164/950 (17%), with a dramatic drop in the mortality rate after the first time quartile, decreasing from 24% to 2% (Figure 1). Age and time of admission were independent predictors of hospital mortality in the multivariate model (Table 1). There are a number of possible reasons that may explain these findings. In our institution, the proportion of patients requiring ICU decreased over time from 17% to 7%, without significant changes in patients’ age, suggesting a decreased severity of clinical presentation and progression.
Table 1 is arresting:
If you were admitted to the ICU at San Raffaele with COVID-19 in the first half of March, you had a one in four chance of dying. If you were admitted in the first half of May, you had a one in 50 chance. Something has changed. But is that something related to the virus itself or to better care by the hospital as doctors came to recognize which treatments worked and which didn’t? The authors mention that as one possible explanation along with several others, ranging from the social distancing effect of the lockdowns to the fact that that distancing also limited co-infections by the flu to even the possibility that lower air pollution due to the reduced traffic has improved patients’ health. The flu theory is especially interesting: What if COVID is especially lethal in colder weather because it weakens the body and makes it susceptible to failure from ordinary everyday flu that we’d otherwise shake off? That’s a possibility worth exploring further.
Whatever the explanation, we’re now a month on from the claim that the virus “no longer exists clinically” in Italy. Annnnnd that claim is looking stronger than we might have guessed a month ago:
The curve for daily cases looks much the same. Like New Yorkers, Italians went through hell but they’ve come through the other side with the virus momentarily in full retreat. And that’s despite the fact that Italy began easing lockdown restrictions at the start of June. Whether because of stringent voluntary social distancing or because the virus there really has lost something, Italy’s thus far avoided the fate of the U.S. in experiencing a resurgent first wave.
There’s no hard evidence I’m aware of that the virus has mutated into something less lethal, although there is evidence that it’s mutated into something more contagious. I flagged this WaPo story yesterday in posing a question: Is it possible that the new, more infectious strain of SARS-CoV-2 that doctors think is taking over the world might also be less deadly than the original version? Americans are watching in horror as the case counts here climb each day, only to be left scratching their heads at the fact that deaths aren’t similarly rising. A more infectious yet less deadly strain of the disease would explain that.
But there are other possibilities. WaPo floated this theory a month ago for why cases and deaths in Italy had dropped precipitously:
Zangrillo’s clinical observations are more likely a reflection of the fact that with the peak of the outbreak long past, there is less virus in circulation, and people may be less likely to be exposed to high doses of it. In addition, only severely sick people were likely to be tested early on, compared with the situation now when even those with mild symptoms are more likely to get swabbed, experts said… “The virus hasn’t lost function on the time scale of two months,” said Andrew Noymer, an epidemiologist at the University of California at Irvine. “Loss of function is something I expect over a time scale of years.”
It may not be the virus itself is weaker. It may simply be that Italians are encountering less of it in their daily interactions. *If* it’s true that there’s a certain threshold viral load beyond which COVID-19 transforms from a nasty but manageable bug into a life-threatening illness then crushing the curve may have a momentous salutary side benefit to locals. Not only will they be less likely to get infected, they may be less likely to die if they are infected.
What about the global picture, though? This graph represents deaths from the disease across the world. There’s been very little change since mid-May, although of course there are different hot spots now than there were then:
That’s proof that the virus *isn’t* weakening, right? Well, hold on. Here’s the graph of confirmed cases around the world since mid-May:
We have roughly the same number of deaths then and now … but twice the number of cases today. Hmmm! There are obvious caveats there, starting with the fact that no one really knows if Russia or Brazil, let alone China, is reporting their data accurately. And for what it’s worth, deaths have begun to rise slightly in some American hot spots lately, which may be the start of an ominous trend:
Arizona: But deaths are still climbing. pic.twitter.com/3Mc02Xn0GI — Jim Edwards (@Jim_Edwards) July 1, 2020
Texas: Deaths are now trending solidly up. This is bad. pic.twitter.com/1AxkK7h0er — Jim Edwards (@Jim_Edwards) July 1, 2020
But it’s plausible that something has changed between two months ago and now to reduce the risk of death from SARS-CoV-2. I’ll leave you with this quote by an expert at the University of Pittsburgh from WaPo’s story last month, as it seems like the most probable explanation: “I believe it’s safe to say that the differences that doctors are reporting in Italy are entirely due to changes to medical treatment and in human behavior, which limit transmission and numbers of new infections initiated by large inocula — a larger dose of virus appears to be worse — rather than changes in the virus itself.”


hotair--2020-07-01--Trump-appointed judge strikes down administration's border asylum restriction

In what is being called a legal setback to the Trump administration ’ s asylum policy , a U.S. federal judge struck down a rule that curtails asylum applications at the U.S.-Mexico border on Tuesday .
The judge , U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly , is a Trump appointee based in Washington , D.C .
It looks like it was a matter of sloppiness in the process rather than a ruling against the policy itself .
The good news for those of us concerned about border security and immigration issues is that this ruling will likely have little effect in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration put into place a separate coronavirus-related policy that allows border authorities the ability to rapidly deport migrants without standard legal processes .
This stops the pathway to request asylum .
The ruling from Judge Kelly pertains to a fast-track rule put into place in July 2019 .
The rule blocks asylum seekers who pass through another country en route to the United States .
It is meant to pressure other countries to help slow the migration of Central American migrants to the U.S – Mexico border .
Applicants have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous country or be victims of sex trafficking .
Not long after the administration put the rule into place , California-based U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar issued a nationwide injunction blocking it .
But , the Supreme Court later stayed that injunction to wait for the outcome of the litigation .
In his ruling , Judge Kelly issued a 52-page opinion that said , “ the Trump administration had failed to provide adequate time for public comment or show there was a good reason to bypass standard regulatory processes.
” This isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following the proper process has come back to bite the Trump administration .
It looks like the staff needs to tighten up crossing their ‘ t ’ s and dotting their ‘ i ’ s in official paperwork .
In June , the Supreme Court gave what looked to be a victory for the children of illegal immigrants when it ruled against the Trump administration ’ s attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ( DACA ) program .
That ruling came down because the administration didn ’ t meet regulatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement of support for the DACA program itself .
Hardy Vieux , an attorney at Human Rights First , issued a typically overwrought statement that praises Judge Kelly ’ s decision while trashing the bad Orange Man .
The Capital Area Immigrants Rights Coalition weighed in , too .
An ACLU attorney also spoke about the administration ’ s “ failed attempt to make an end-run ” in the process .
“ End-run ” must have been included in the talking points for the open borders crowd .
“ Judge Kelly ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not do an end-run around the law , ” Vieux said in a statement .
“ In the United States of America , we follow the rule of law , even when it benefits asylum-seekers demonized by this administration .
We do not follow the rule of one capricious man , who treats the law as something on which to trample , on his way to a photo op.
” The Capital Area Immigrants Rights Coalition , another plaintiff , added that the decision would remove a barrier for those seeking safety from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule , Judge Kelly reaffirmed two fundamental principles , ” said Claudia Cubas , the group ’ s litigation director .
“ The protection of asylum seekers fleeing for safety is intertwined with our national values and that the United States is a country where the rule of law can not be tossed aside for political whims.
” And ACLU attorney Julie Veroff , who helped bring a separate challenge to the rule in California , said , “ The court recognized that the Trump administration unlawfully skipped steps mandated by Congress to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make an end-run around asylum protections.
” Judge Kelly ’ s ruling can be appealed but it is unclear if the Trump administration intends to do so .

In what is being called a legal setback to the Trump administration’s asylum policy, a U.S. federal judge struck down a rule that curtails asylum applications at the U.S.-Mexico border on Tuesday. The judge, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, is a Trump appointee based in Washington, D.C.
It looks like it was a matter of sloppiness in the process rather than a ruling against the policy itself. The good news for those of us concerned about border security and immigration issues is that this ruling will likely have little effect in the near term. In March, the Trump administration put into place a separate coronavirus-related policy that allows border authorities the ability to rapidly deport migrants without standard legal processes. This stops the pathway to request asylum.
The ruling from Judge Kelly pertains to a fast-track rule put into place in July 2019. The rule blocks asylum seekers who pass through another country en route to the United States. It is meant to pressure other countries to help slow the migration of Central American migrants to the U.S – Mexico border. Applicants have to have previously applied for asylum from a previous country or be victims of sex trafficking. Not long after the administration put the rule into place, California-based U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar issued a nationwide injunction blocking it. But, the Supreme Court later stayed that injunction to wait for the outcome of the litigation.
In his ruling, Judge Kelly issued a 52-page opinion that said, “the Trump administration had failed to provide adequate time for public comment or show there was a good reason to bypass standard regulatory processes.”
This isn’t the first time a lack of following the proper process has come back to bite the Trump administration. It looks like the staff needs to tighten up crossing their ‘t’s and dotting their ‘i’s in official paperwork. In June, the Supreme Court gave what looked to be a victory for the children of illegal immigrants when it ruled against the Trump administration’s attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. That ruling came down because the administration didn’t meet regulatory requirements – it wasn’t a statement of support for the DACA program itself.
Hardy Vieux, an attorney at Human Rights First, issued a typically overwrought statement that praises Judge Kelly’s decision while trashing the bad Orange Man. The Capital Area Immigrants Rights Coalition weighed in, too. An ACLU attorney also spoke about the administration’s “failed attempt to make an end-run” in the process. “End-run” must have been included in the talking points for the open borders crowd.
“Judge Kelly’s ruling is proof that the administration cannot do an end-run around the law,” Vieux said in a statement. “In the United States of America, we follow the rule of law, even when it benefits asylum-seekers demonized by this administration. We do not follow the rule of one capricious man, who treats the law as something on which to trample, on his way to a photo op.” The Capital Area Immigrants Rights Coalition, another plaintiff, added that the decision would remove a barrier for those seeking safety from persecution. “By striking down this rule, Judge Kelly reaffirmed two fundamental principles,” said Claudia Cubas, the group’s litigation director. “The protection of asylum seekers fleeing for safety is intertwined with our national values and that the United States is a country where the rule of law cannot be tossed aside for political whims.” And ACLU attorney Julie Veroff, who helped bring a separate challenge to the rule in California, said, “The court recognized that the Trump administration unlawfully skipped steps mandated by Congress to ensure transparency in its failed attempt to make an end-run around asylum protections.”
Judge Kelly’s ruling can be appealed but it is unclear if the Trump administration intends to do so.


hotair--2020-07-02--Black leaders to Minneapolis city council: Dismantling police is "egregious, grotesque, absurd, craz

Black leaders to Minneapolis city council: Dismantling police is "egregious, grotesque, absurd, crazy, ridiculous" ... and maybe racist

If you think that dismantling an urban police department and replacing it with social workers is nuts , you ’ re in good company .
The very people that the Minneapolis city council claimed to be serving in its attempt to eliminate its own police department have begun blasting the idea as “ absurd ” and “ ridiculous.
” African-American leaders within the city are accusing the council of rushing to a conclusion without engaging them — and offering a proposal that will leave them unprotected from violence in the future : These are a handful of the words that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rebuke the Minneapolis City Council ’ s moves toward dismantling the Police Department , even as they demand an overhaul of law enforcement .
While the movement to defund the police has been driven by Black activists , others say that city politicians rushed the process and failed to include a police chief who has the backing of many Black residents .
“ They have shown a complete disregard for the voices and perspectives of many members of the African American community , ” said Nekima Levy Armstrong , a civil rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chapter of the NAACP .
“ We have not been consulted as the city makes its decisions , even though our community is the one most heavily impacted by both police violence and community violence.
” In fact , the activists allege , the city council has basically targeted a black man for unemployment .
This makes the need to pass the popcorn even more urgent : The measure doesn ’ t preclude a chief with a traditional policing background , but it requires the head of the new agency to have “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including but not limited to public health and/or restorative justice approaches.
” Arradondo joined the department as a patrol officer in 1989 in his early twenties .
“ Why now , when you have an African American chief who is highly regarded and trusted in the Black community ?
” said Steven Belton , president and CEO of the Urban League Twin Cities .
“ This strikes me as being passive-aggressive Minnesota Nice on steroids .
This is a hit on Chief Arradondo.
” Did the city council even bother to engage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this issue before jumping onto the # DefundthePolice bandwagon ?
They are both claiming not to have been consulted at all , which is mind-bendingly stupid if true .
It ’ s not as if those are particularly obscure organizations in the black community , after all ; they have been an integral and leading part of it for decades , including here in the Twin Cities .
The subtext of this complaint from these organizations isn ’ t hard to catch — they ’ re accusing the city council of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a picture-perfect example of the frustration that African-Americans have had with progressives and Democrats .
Republicans ignore them , but their putative allies take them for granted and condescendingly dictate solutions for their problems without getting their input .
Defunding and dismantling police departments is the reductio ad absurdum of that phenomenon .
As these leaders argue , wealthy residents will pay for their own security , leaving the black community to twist in the wind .
Violence has already begun to spike in those neighborhoods thanks to a retreat by police in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who live there don ’ t want to live in a city without police .
They just want a police department who works with them to provide security and enforce the law in an even-handed manner .
The city council has the ultimate responsibility for those policies , and their attempt to dismantle policing is nothing more than a capitulation rather than a healthy or even sane innovation .
Don ’ t expect this to go very far , however .
This sharp criticism might push the city council to rethink its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Charter Commission .
That panel has to approve any referendum dealing with the city charter , and they already have expressed skepticism about the idea of expediting a review to make the deadline for the November election : With 15 volunteer members appointed by a Hennepin County district judge , the Minneapolis Charter Commission plays a crucial role in determining whether the city can change its constitution , which requires minimum staffing for police based on the city ’ s population .
In the coming weeks , many will be watching to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prevent the City Council ’ s proposal from fast-tracking its way onto the November ballot .
It did that two years ago , when the council tried to increase its oversight of the department .
A public meeting Wednesday provided the first hints as to what the commissioners might do , with a tight deadline looming .
“ I ’ m not as concerned about meeting the council ’ s timeline as I am about getting this right , ” said Commissioner Matt Perry .
He added : “ If that pushes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” With the local chapters of the NAACP and Urban League blasting the proposal as “ egregious ” and “ crazy , ” just how much enthusiasm does anyone expect the charter commission to exhibit for this insane idea ?
Not only will it likely not make the ballot in November , it might die a quiet and well-deserved death … if the city council is lucky .

If you think that dismantling an urban police department and replacing it with social workers is nuts, you’re in good company. The very people that the Minneapolis city council claimed to be serving in its attempt to eliminate its own police department have begun blasting the idea as “absurd” and “ridiculous.” African-American leaders within the city are accusing the council of rushing to a conclusion without engaging them — and offering a proposal that will leave them unprotected from violence in the future:
Egregious, grotesque, absurd, crazy, ridiculous. These are a handful of the words that some local African American leaders are using to rebuke the Minneapolis City Council’s moves toward dismantling the Police Department, even as they demand an overhaul of law enforcement. While the movement to defund the police has been driven by Black activists, others say that city politicians rushed the process and failed to include a police chief who has the backing of many Black residents. “They have shown a complete disregard for the voices and perspectives of many members of the African American community,” said Nekima Levy Armstrong, a civil rights attorney and former president of the Minneapolis chapter of the NAACP. “We have not been consulted as the city makes its decisions, even though our community is the one most heavily impacted by both police violence and community violence.”
In fact, the activists allege, the city council has basically targeted a black man for unemployment. This makes the need to pass the popcorn even more urgent:
The measure doesn’t preclude a chief with a traditional policing background, but it requires the head of the new agency to have “non-law enforcement experience in community safety services, including but not limited to public health and/or restorative justice approaches.” Arradondo joined the department as a patrol officer in 1989 in his early twenties. “Why now, when you have an African American chief who is highly regarded and trusted in the Black community?” said Steven Belton, president and CEO of the Urban League Twin Cities. “This strikes me as being passive-aggressive Minnesota Nice on steroids. This is a hit on Chief Arradondo.”
Did the city council even bother to engage with the NAACP or the Urban League on this issue before jumping onto the #DefundthePolice bandwagon? They are both claiming not to have been consulted at all, which is mind-bendingly stupid if true. It’s not as if those are particularly obscure organizations in the black community, after all; they have been an integral and leading part of it for decades, including here in the Twin Cities. The subtext of this complaint from these organizations isn’t hard to catch — they’re accusing the city council of “passive-aggressive” racism.
This is almost a picture-perfect example of the frustration that African-Americans have had with progressives and Democrats. Republicans ignore them, but their putative allies take them for granted and condescendingly dictate solutions for their problems without getting their input. Defunding and dismantling police departments is the reductio ad absurdum of that phenomenon. As these leaders argue, wealthy residents will pay for their own security, leaving the black community to twist in the wind. Violence has already begun to spike in those neighborhoods thanks to a retreat by police in the aftermath of the riots.
The people who live there don’t want to live in a city without police. They just want a police department who works with them to provide security and enforce the law in an even-handed manner. The city council has the ultimate responsibility for those policies, and their attempt to dismantle policing is nothing more than a capitulation rather than a healthy or even sane innovation.
Don’t expect this to go very far, however. This sharp criticism might push the city council to rethink its proposal, but it will certainly impact the Charter Commission. That panel has to approve any referendum dealing with the city charter, and they already have expressed skepticism about the idea of expediting a review to make the deadline for the November election:
With 15 volunteer members appointed by a Hennepin County district judge, the Minneapolis Charter Commission plays a crucial role in determining whether the city can change its constitution, which requires minimum staffing for police based on the city’s population. In the coming weeks, many will be watching to see whether the commission uses its procedures to prevent the City Council’s proposal from fast-tracking its way onto the November ballot. It did that two years ago, when the council tried to increase its oversight of the department. A public meeting Wednesday provided the first hints as to what the commissioners might do, with a tight deadline looming. “I’m not as concerned about meeting the council’s timeline as I am about getting this right,” said Commissioner Matt Perry. He added: “If that pushes the timeline out, so be it.”
With the local chapters of the NAACP and Urban League blasting the proposal as “egregious” and “crazy,” just how much enthusiasm does anyone expect the charter commission to exhibit for this insane idea? Not only will it likely not make the ballot in November, it might die a quiet and well-deserved death … if the city council is lucky.


hotair--2020-07-02--Does it mean something that the SDNY's Public Corruption Unit is handling Ghislaine Maxwell's case?

The public interest in seeing this degenerate arrested is a 50/50 mix of wanting her to suffer for her crimes and wanting to see if she rolls over on anyone else in Epstein ’ s circle .
Lotta suspense on that last point .
Lotta big names potentially in the mix .
Strong , powerful names .
The biggest !
Former prosecutor Elie Honig got some attention with this comment , noting the fine print in the DOJ ’ s press release that the Southern District of New York ’ s Public Corruption Unit will be handling Maxwell ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t this a sex-crimes case ?
Hmmm .
Ken White , a former federal prosecutor himself , questioned Honig about that .
Isn ’ t it true that in some U.S. Attorney ’ s offices the Public Corruption Unit gets handed the complicated stuff even if there isn ’ t a public official in the crosshairs ?
Honig ’ s reply : Another former federal prosecutor added an important footnote : So maybe the Maxwell case was handed to the PCU early in the belief that it might eventually implicate a public official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it has , or will .
They might be staying with the case simply because they ’ re more familiar with the facts and the law at this point than any other office in the building .
Naturally lefties are pointing a finger at Trump today while righties are pointing a finger at Bill Clinton .
The talented Mr. Epstein was a known associate of not one but two U.S. presidents , after all .
But if there ’ s a “ public official ” at risk here , it doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Clinton .
Remember that Epstein was pursued by the feds in 2007 for sex crimes and somehow ended up with a deal so insanely favorable that it might pose a problem for prosecuting Maxwell .
That deal was upheld by a federal appellate court a few months ago , with the judges describing Epstein ’ s case as a “ national disgrace.
” The deal purported to guarantee federal immunity to Epstein *and* his co-conspirators , which would include Maxwell .
Prosecutors will argue that the agreement covers only the Florida district @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SDNY , but there was language in it about “ global ” immunity .
Does that mean Maxwell ’ s untouchable in New York too ?
The man who signed off on that deal is the now-former Secretary of Labor , Alex Acosta .
Is he the “ public official ” who the SDNY thinks might be implicated by discovery with Maxwell ?
She might have some interesting things to say about how that freakishly favorable arrangement came to be .
That ’ s not to suggest that Acosta was part of Epstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rich and well-connected people have a lot of levers they can pull to get what they want .
There ’ d better be a platoon of Marines stationed outside Maxwell ’ s cell making sure no one lays a hand on her , including herself .
If she ends up hanging herself , whatever traces of trust in public institutions that are left in this country will go up in smoke .
In lieu of an exit question , enjoy this , which is weird even by the standards of 2020 .
Looks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

The public interest in seeing this degenerate arrested is a 50/50 mix of wanting her to suffer for her crimes and wanting to see if she rolls over on anyone else in Epstein’s circle.
Lotta suspense on that last point. Lotta big names potentially in the mix. Strong, powerful names. The biggest!
Former prosecutor Elie Honig got some attention with this comment, noting the fine print in the DOJ’s press release that the Southern District of New York’s Public Corruption Unit will be handling Maxwell’s prosecution. Public corruption? Isn’t this a sex-crimes case?
SDNY just announced the Ghislaine Maxwell case – like the original Epstein case – is staffed by the Public Corruption Unit. I worked at SDNY and did sex trafficking cases. They do NOT run out of Public Corruption – unless there is some potential angle against a public official. — Elie Honig (@eliehonig) July 2, 2020
Hmmm. Ken White, a former federal prosecutor himself, questioned Honig about that. Isn’t it true that in some U.S. Attorney’s offices the Public Corruption Unit gets handed the complicated stuff even if there isn’t a public official in the crosshairs? Honig’s reply:
Good question but not in my experience. We’ve done cases against many big shots and famous people that did not go to PC if they didn’t involve actual public official types. — Elie Honig (@eliehonig) July 2, 2020
Another former federal prosecutor added an important footnote:
True, but if there were any public corruption angle at any point (former official? MCC?), even if it didn't pan out, the unit would likely keep this case — Jacob Buchdahl (@JBuchdahl) July 2, 2020
So maybe the Maxwell case was handed to the PCU early in the belief that it might eventually implicate a public official. But that doesn’t mean that it has, or will. They might be staying with the case simply because they’re more familiar with the facts and the law at this point than any other office in the building.
Naturally lefties are pointing a finger at Trump today while righties are pointing a finger at Bill Clinton. The talented Mr. Epstein was a known associate of not one but two U.S. presidents, after all. But if there’s a “public official” at risk here, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s Trump or Clinton. Remember that Epstein was pursued by the feds in 2007 for sex crimes and somehow ended up with a deal so insanely favorable that it might pose a problem for prosecuting Maxwell.
Totally agree. That plea deal was unconscionable and I’ve never seen one like it. (And glaring evidence of the absurd deal they gave Epstein down in FL). I also don’t think it is enforceable – particularly by a non-party like Maxwell. — Elie Honig (@eliehonig) July 2, 2020
That deal was upheld by a federal appellate court a few months ago, with the judges describing Epstein’s case as a “national disgrace.” The deal purported to guarantee federal immunity to Epstein *and* his co-conspirators, which would include Maxwell. Prosecutors will argue that the agreement covers only the Florida district where it was signed, not the SDNY, but there was language in it about “global” immunity. Does that mean Maxwell’s untouchable in New York too?
The man who signed off on that deal is the now-former Secretary of Labor, Alex Acosta. Is he the “public official” who the SDNY thinks might be implicated by discovery with Maxwell? She might have some interesting things to say about how that freakishly favorable arrangement came to be. That’s not to suggest that Acosta was part of Epstein’s circle, merely that fabulously rich and well-connected people have a lot of levers they can pull to get what they want.
There’d better be a platoon of Marines stationed outside Maxwell’s cell making sure no one lays a hand on her, including herself. If she ends up hanging herself, whatever traces of trust in public institutions that are left in this country will go up in smoke. In lieu of an exit question, enjoy this, which is weird even by the standards of 2020. Looks nothing like him, by the way.


hotair--2020-07-02--Chinese state media touts growing international support for 'alternative model' of human rights

Chinese state-run media published several articles yesterday touting strong international support for its new national security law for Hong Kong .
The tallies come from competing statements at the UN Human Rights Council .
One group of 53 countries led by Cuba signed a statement supporting China ’ s new law .
A smaller group led by the UK signed a contradictory statement criticizing the law .
As far as China ’ s delusional state media is concerned that was a big win : The landslide victory was seen by experts as showing that China ’ s achievements in human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known by wider audiences .
The double standards of some Western countries that tried to politicize the UNHRC and to use human rights-related issues as weapons to attack China , brought themselves more criticism within the international community .
On behalf of 53 countries , Cuba made a joint statement in Geneva on Tuesday , expressing support for China ’ s passing the national security law for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region .
The representative from Cuba said that not interfering with a sovereign state ’ s internal affairs is the basic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international order .
The National Security Law for Hong Kong is China ’ s legitimate power .
This is not a question about human rights and it should not be discussed at the human rights council , the Cuban representative said .
Pointing to Cuba as an example of human rights should be laughable but of course it ’ s not to other authoritarian states around the world who also want to protect their right to rule and suppress their people as they see fit .
Axios published a complete list of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as those who opposed it .
The list of 53 countries was not initially published along with the statement , but has been obtained by Axios .
It is made up primarily of autocratic states , including North Korea , Saudi Arabia , Syria and Zimbabwe… Supporting : China , Antigua and Barbuda , Bahrain , Belarus , Burundi , Cambodia , Cameroon , Central African Republic , Comoros , Congo-Brazzaville , Cuba , Djibouti , Dominica , Egypt , Equatorial Guinea , Eritrea , Gabon , Gambia , Guinea , Guinea-Bissau , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Lebanon , Lesotho , Mauritania , Morocco , Mozambique , Myanmar , Nepal , Nicaragua , Niger , North Korea , Oman , Pakistan , Palestine , Papua New Guinea , Saudi Arabia , Sierra Leone , Somalia , South Sudan , Sri Lanka , Sudan , Suriname , Syria , Tajikistan , Togo , UAE , Venezuela , Yemen , Zambia and Zimbabwe .
Opposing : Australia , Austria , Belgium , Belize , Canada , Denmark , Estonia , Finland , France , Iceland , Ireland , Germany , Japan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Luxembourg , Marshall Islands , Netherlands , New Zealand , Norway , Palau , Slovakia , Slovenia , Sweden , Switzerland , and the U.K.
Here ’ s a chart created by Axios showing the two sides : The U.S. isn ’ t included in the opposition list because we dropped out of the Human Rights Council in 2018 .
But obviously , even if we ’ d been included it wouldn ’ t change the numbers much .
And that brings us to the really worrisome aspect of this .
The Global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor who suggests the Chinese “ alternative ” view of human rights is winning converts .
Western countries now see the UNHRC as a platform to serve their own political purposes , and although the US has withdrawn from the council , it still has strong influence over many members in the organization , thus its allies are trying to speak for the US on the UNHRC , Zhu Ying , a professor of international law at Southwest University of Political Science and Law , told the Global Times… Zhu said that as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grown stronger , more countries are recognizing China ’ s system of human rights , believing it provides an alternative model of how to improve people ’ s lives and secure sovereignty .
The UNHRC has become more polarized as countries vie to voice support for either Chinese style human rights or the Western type , said Zhu .
Obviously Professor Zhu ’ s view that China just has an “ alternative ” system of human rights is nonsense .
China is an authoritarian hellhole which silences , bullies , threatens , disappears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuses and murders anyone who they consider a threat .
That ’ s not a different version of human rights , it ’ s the absence of human rights .
The point here is not that Zhu is telling the truth about human rights but that he is to some degree telling the truth about the choice the rest of the world has to make in response to China ’ s record .
There really are clearly lots of authoritarian countries around the world who eagerly support China because they also want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternative form of human rights .
That ’ s easy to see in places like North Korea , Iran and Venezuela , places where torturing and murdering those who oppose the government has become standard practice .
As China has become more openly authoritarian under Xi Jinping it is also attempting to openly make the case for others to adopt similar repressive measures .
After all , you don ’ t have to worry about complaints about a lack of human rights if you don ’ t tolerate any complaints .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opt for that “ alternative ” view but it is worrisome .
It ’ s especially worrisome when some U.S. corporations and normally outspoken supporters of human rights seem ready to go along with that .

Chinese state-run media published several articles yesterday touting strong international support for its new national security law for Hong Kong. The tallies come from competing statements at the UN Human Rights Council. One group of 53 countries led by Cuba signed a statement supporting China’s new law. A smaller group led by the UK signed a contradictory statement criticizing the law. As far as China’s delusional state media is concerned that was a big win:
The landslide victory was seen by experts as showing that China’s achievements in human rights have won more supporters and become known by wider audiences. The double standards of some Western countries that tried to politicize the UNHRC and to use human rights-related issues as weapons to attack China, brought themselves more criticism within the international community. On behalf of 53 countries, Cuba made a joint statement in Geneva on Tuesday, expressing support for China’s passing the national security law for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The representative from Cuba said that not interfering with a sovereign state’s internal affairs is the basic principle of the UN Charter and the international order. The National Security Law for Hong Kong is China’s legitimate power. This is not a question about human rights and it should not be discussed at the human rights council, the Cuban representative said.
Pointing to Cuba as an example of human rights should be laughable but of course it’s not to other authoritarian states around the world who also want to protect their right to rule and suppress their people as they see fit. Axios published a complete list of all the countries that supported China as well as those who opposed it.
The list of 53 countries was not initially published along with the statement, but has been obtained by Axios. It is made up primarily of autocratic states, including North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Zimbabwe… Supporting: China, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Comoros, Congo-Brazzaville, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, UAE, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Opposing: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Belize, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K.
Here’s a chart created by Axios showing the two sides:
The U.S. isn’t included in the opposition list because we dropped out of the Human Rights Council in 2018. But obviously, even if we’d been included it wouldn’t change the numbers much. And that brings us to the really worrisome aspect of this. The Global Times piece quotes a Chinese political science professor who suggests the Chinese “alternative” view of human rights is winning converts.
Western countries now see the UNHRC as a platform to serve their own political purposes, and although the US has withdrawn from the council, it still has strong influence over many members in the organization, thus its allies are trying to speak for the US on the UNHRC, Zhu Ying, a professor of international law at Southwest University of Political Science and Law, told the Global Times… Zhu said that as China’s influence projected worldwide has grown stronger, more countries are recognizing China’s system of human rights, believing it provides an alternative model of how to improve people’s lives and secure sovereignty. The UNHRC has become more polarized as countries vie to voice support for either Chinese style human rights or the Western type, said Zhu.
Obviously Professor Zhu’s view that China just has an “alternative” system of human rights is nonsense. China is an authoritarian hellhole which silences, bullies, threatens, disappears, jails, re-educates, sterilizes, abuses and murders anyone who they consider a threat. That’s not a different version of human rights, it’s the absence of human rights.
The point here is not that Zhu is telling the truth about human rights but that he is to some degree telling the truth about the choice the rest of the world has to make in response to China’s record. There really are clearly lots of authoritarian countries around the world who eagerly support China because they also want to be left alone to pursue the same alternative form of human rights. That’s easy to see in places like North Korea, Iran and Venezuela, places where torturing and murdering those who oppose the government has become standard practice.
As China has become more openly authoritarian under Xi Jinping it is also attempting to openly make the case for others to adopt similar repressive measures. After all, you don’t have to worry about complaints about a lack of human rights if you don’t tolerate any complaints. It’s not surprising that so many countries opt for that “alternative” view but it is worrisome. It’s especially worrisome when some U.S. corporations and normally outspoken supporters of human rights seem ready to go along with that.


hotair--2020-07-02--Things just got real: Statewide mask mandate imposed in ... Texas

This feels only slightly less shocking and transgressive than watching the state turn blue on election night would .
Which , at the rate we ’ re going , is a possibility .
That ’ s part of why Greg Abbott went all-in on masks , I assume .
If the outbreak continues to spiral in Texas , with the ruling party eventually blamed for not doing everything it could to stem the tide , there ’ ll be political consequences , not just human consequences .
As one Twitter pal put it , “ Abbott ’ s fascinating because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone but has to govern a large , complex state that ’ s rapidly becoming less Republican.
” Still , a mask mandate in the beating heart of red-state America ?
In Alamo country ?
You can imagine Abbott ’ s response .
“ The virus is about to breach the walls .
You know how the Alamo ended , right ?
” The order requires Texans living in counties with 20 or more positive COVID-19 cases to wear a face covering over the nose and mouth while inside a business or other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as outdoor public spaces , whenever social distancing is not possible .
But it provides several exceptions , including children who are younger than 10 years old , people who have a medical condition that prevents them from wearing a mask , people who are eating or drinking and people who are exercising outdoors .
Abbott ’ s order specifies at least one group of people is not excepted from the order : “ any person attending a protest or demonstration ” with over 10 people who can not socially distance… First-time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written or verbal warning .
Those who violate the order a second time will receive a fine of up to $ 250 .
Every subsequent violation is punishable also by a fine of up to $ 250 .
The order specifics that no one can get jail time for a violation .
Tantrums are already being thrown on social media in reaction to this very slight , potentially life-saving inconvenience .
To give you a sense of how dramatic Abbott ’ s change of heart is , though , read the last sentence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from his executive order in late April .
He banned local governments from imposing mask mandates .
Now he ’ s imposing one of his own .
There ’ s no jail time for violations , as the excerpt above notes , but it ’ s a testament to how worrisome Texas ’ s outbreak has become that he ’ d be willing to reverse himself quite this starkly : At last check hospitals in Houston were starting to transfer patients to other cities in order to cope with local demand for treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positivity rate of any metro area in the entire country .
Not great .
Abbott frames his decision in the clip below in a smart way .
It ’ s not that we ’ re mandating masks just to hold down the spread , he says , as that argument won ’ t appeal to a certain segment of the population that doesn ’ t seem to care how many infections there are .
Rather , we ’ re mandating masks so that the economy can stay open .
That ’ s how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago : Practice good pandemic hygiene , which means masks and diligent social distancing , and we don ’ t need to lock down .
As it is , Republicans from Abbott to Mitch McConnell to even Fox News are trying to play catch-up , now pushing mask-wearing as a “ break glass in case of emergency ” option as the recent spread pushes southern states and California to the brink of having to issue new economy-killing stay-at-home orders .
Hopefully it works , but we ’ re putting a lot of faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do comply with this order en masse ( or that police really do aggressively enforce ) , how dramatic a reversal can we expect from widespread mask-wearing ?
And how soon ?
There ’ s a lot riding on the outcome of this social experiment : Lives , hospital capacity , the economic recovery , and maybe the presidential election .

This feels only slightly less shocking and transgressive than watching the state turn blue on election night would.
Which, at the rate we’re going, is a possibility. That’s part of why Greg Abbott went all-in on masks, I assume. If the outbreak continues to spiral in Texas, with the ruling party eventually blamed for not doing everything it could to stem the tide, there’ll be political consequences, not just human consequences. As one Twitter pal put it, “Abbott’s fascinating because he’s as red-meat conservative as anyone but has to govern a large, complex state that’s rapidly becoming less Republican.”
Still, a mask mandate in the beating heart of red-state America? In Alamo country?
You can imagine Abbott’s response. “The virus is about to breach the walls. You know how the Alamo ended, right?”
The order requires Texans living in counties with 20 or more positive COVID-19 cases to wear a face covering over the nose and mouth while inside a business or other building open to the public, as well as outdoor public spaces, whenever social distancing is not possible. But it provides several exceptions, including children who are younger than 10 years old, people who have a medical condition that prevents them from wearing a mask, people who are eating or drinking and people who are exercising outdoors. Abbott’s order specifies at least one group of people is not excepted from the order: “any person attending a protest or demonstration” with over 10 people who cannot socially distance… First-time offenders of the order will receive a written or verbal warning. Those who violate the order a second time will receive a fine of up to $250. Every subsequent violation is punishable also by a fine of up to $250. The order specifics that no one can get jail time for a violation.
Tantrums are already being thrown on social media in reaction to this very slight, potentially life-saving inconvenience. To give you a sense of how dramatic Abbott’s change of heart is, though, read the last sentence of this paragraph:
That’s from his executive order in late April. He banned local governments from imposing mask mandates. Now he’s imposing one of his own. There’s no jail time for violations, as the excerpt above notes, but it’s a testament to how worrisome Texas’s outbreak has become that he’d be willing to reverse himself quite this starkly:
At last check hospitals in Houston were starting to transfer patients to other cities in order to cope with local demand for treatment. Last week Austin had the highest positivity rate of any metro area in the entire country. Not great.
Abbott frames his decision in the clip below in a smart way. It’s not that we’re mandating masks just to hold down the spread, he says, as that argument won’t appeal to a certain segment of the population that doesn’t seem to care how many infections there are. Rather, we’re mandating masks so that the economy can stay open. That’s how Trump should have formulated this issue months ago: Practice good pandemic hygiene, which means masks and diligent social distancing, and we don’t need to lock down. As it is, Republicans from Abbott to Mitch McConnell to even Fox News are trying to play catch-up, now pushing mask-wearing as a “break glass in case of emergency” option as the recent spread pushes southern states and California to the brink of having to issue new economy-killing stay-at-home orders. Hopefully it works, but we’re putting a lot of faith in the possibility. Assuming Texans really do comply with this order en masse (or that police really do aggressively enforce), how dramatic a reversal can we expect from widespread mask-wearing? And how soon? There’s a lot riding on the outcome of this social experiment: Lives, hospital capacity, the economic recovery, and maybe the presidential election.