hotair--2020-03-18--Warren sends letter to Trump: Deploy the Army Corps of Engineers to build makeshift hospitals; <span

Warren sends letter to Trump: Deploy the Army Corps of Engineers to build makeshift hospitals; Update: Hospital ship sent to NY; Update: Trump invokes Defense Production Act

This is largely a political stunt , of course .
Andrew Cuomo has already asked for help from the ACE .
Mark Esper was on Fox last night promising that New York , which faces the most urgent crisis right now , is first in line .
Coincidentally , Warren also wants funding for the Corps ’ activities to come from the money Trump commandeered to build the border wall , a thumb in the eye to the president but also a shrewd way to see if he ’ s willing to sacrifice some of his own priorities to support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Presumably he ’ ll say that we need the wall more than ever now to keep infected Mexicans out . )
It ’ s not even clear that the Corps , specifically , is needed more so than military manpower generally .
Vox notes that the sort of work Warren has in mind , like retrofitting existing military facilities to serve as hospitals , can probably be carried out by the National Guard under ACE oversight .
So why is Warren doing this today when the gears are already beginning to turn on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s capitalizing on this depressing NYT story published last night , which found that the Corps — along with many other federal agencies — still hasn ’ t received any official marching orders from Trump yet .
Yet despite promises of a “ whole of government ” effort , key agencies — like the Army Corps of Engineers , other parts of the Defense Department , the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Veterans Affairs — had not been asked to play much of a role .
Even after Mr. Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Army Corps of Engineers said it still had not received direction from the administration… Hospital ships are at port .
The Department of Veterans Affairs , legally designated as the backup health care system in national emergencies , awaits requests for help .
The veterans department has a surplus of beds in many of its 172 hospital centers and a robust number of special rooms for patients with breathing disorders .
The sprawling system of emergency doctors and nurses ready to be deployed by the Department of Health and Human Services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ System — is also still waiting for orders , other than to staff locations where passengers offloaded from cruise ships are being quarantined .
And the Defense Department , home to 1.3 million active-duty troops and a civilian and military infrastructure that has made planning for national emergencies almost an art form , has yet to be deployed to its fullest capabilities .
It ’ s unfair to expect perfect efficiency from the feds at a moment when they ’ re having to scramble to mitigate a once-in-a-lifetime epidemic and bail out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t hit back at Japan the day after Pearl Harbor ; men had to be mobilized , plans had to be laid , money had to be raised .
It was more than six months until Midway .
Things don ’ t happen overnight in a national crisis .
But to say that we can ’ t fault the administration for not deploying the ACE in early January , when most of the western world still considered coronavirus a hypothetical threat , isn ’ t to say that we can ’ t fault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ACE now , with NYC about to be overrun .
Governors were asking for federal help weeks ago , notes the NYT .
Oregon requested 400,000 N95 masks on March 3 and finally received a shipment of 36,000 a few days ago .
New York requested two million and got 76,000 — all expired .
The possibility of a ventilator shortage in a worst-case scenario was perfectly foreseeable many weeks ago .
Why not contract with manufacturers at the time to get the ball rolling on that , knowing that even if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t necessary , it ’ d be worth having them in the national stockpile ?
As I write this , Team Trump apparently still hasn ’ t placed those orders or invoked the Defense Production Act to cut red tape and allow manufacturers to ramp up production quickly without the usual regulatory hurdles .
Per HuffPost , the feds could also charter planes to help transport material needed for manufacture now that supply chains have slowed down .
But maybe it ’ s too late .
Companies that build custom-made parts for ventilators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which will slow down how quickly they can supply U.S. manufacturers even if planes are available .
It would be nice at least to have thousands of new machines online this fall in anticipation of the “ second wave ” of the disease .
Better late than never !
But it ’ s too late already to help people hit by the first wave : As the United States braces for an onslaught of coronavirus cases , hospitals and governments are confronting a grim reality : There are not nearly enough lifesaving ventilator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no way to solve the problem before the disease reaches full throttle .
Desperate hospitals say they can ’ t find anywhere to buy the medical devices , which help patients breathe and can be the difference between life and death for those facing the most dire respiratory effects of the coronavirus .
American and European manufacturers say they can ’ t speed up production enough to meet soaring demand , at least not anytime soon .
The epidemic ’ s going to go on for 18 months , with multiple waves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projections .
We should … probably put those orders in now , no ?
This crisis doesn ’ t need to be a total managerial failure , just a grand-scale one .
Ventilators aren ’ t even the most desperate shortage .
Patients dying en masse because care needs to be rationed is a nightmare ; doctors and nurses getting infected en masse because they lack masks and other protective gear is a Biblical nightmare since that means the amount of care available will actively shrink .
I haven ’ t seen anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that suggests that shortage will be solved in time .
Here ’ s Esper last night on Fox assuring views of the military ’ s readiness to help out .
New York City is reportedly already looking at the Javits convention center and potentially Madison Square Garden to house coronavirus patients once local hospitals run out of capacity .
Update : We have some movement .
The Vox piece linked up top stresses that hospital ships are obviously primed for battlefield injuries , not for pandemics and quarantines .
The plan in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be to have actual hospitals focusing more heavily on coronavirus while sending patients who need treatment for other reasons to the ship .
Update : More movement at 12:10 p.m .
ET : FEMA ’ s coordinating center has also now been activated .
That NYT story seems to have shaken things up .

This is largely a political stunt, of course. Andrew Cuomo has already asked for help from the ACE. Mark Esper was on Fox last night promising that New York, which faces the most urgent crisis right now, is first in line. Coincidentally, Warren also wants funding for the Corps’ activities to come from the money Trump commandeered to build the border wall, a thumb in the eye to the president but also a shrewd way to see if he’s willing to sacrifice some of his own priorities to support the national effort against coronavirus. (Presumably he’ll say that we need the wall more than ever now to keep infected Mexicans out.)
It’s not even clear that the Corps, specifically, is needed more so than military manpower generally. Vox notes that the sort of work Warren has in mind, like retrofitting existing military facilities to serve as hospitals, can probably be carried out by the National Guard under ACE oversight.
So why is Warren doing this today when the gears are already beginning to turn on ACE involvement? Answer: She’s capitalizing on this depressing NYT story published last night, which found that the Corps — along with many other federal agencies — still hasn’t received any official marching orders from Trump yet.
Yet despite promises of a “whole of government” effort, key agencies — like the Army Corps of Engineers, other parts of the Defense Department, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Veterans Affairs — had not been asked to play much of a role. Even after Mr. Trump committed to supporting the states on Tuesday, the Army Corps of Engineers said it still had not received direction from the administration… Hospital ships are at port. The Department of Veterans Affairs, legally designated as the backup health care system in national emergencies, awaits requests for help. The veterans department has a surplus of beds in many of its 172 hospital centers and a robust number of special rooms for patients with breathing disorders. The sprawling system of emergency doctors and nurses ready to be deployed by the Department of Health and Human Services — known as the National Disaster Medical System — is also still waiting for orders, other than to staff locations where passengers offloaded from cruise ships are being quarantined. And the Defense Department, home to 1.3 million active-duty troops and a civilian and military infrastructure that has made planning for national emergencies almost an art form, has yet to be deployed to its fullest capabilities.
It’s unfair to expect perfect efficiency from the feds at a moment when they’re having to scramble to mitigate a once-in-a-lifetime epidemic and bail out the entire economy. The U.S. didn’t hit back at Japan the day after Pearl Harbor; men had to be mobilized, plans had to be laid, money had to be raised. It was more than six months until Midway. Things don’t happen overnight in a national crisis.
But to say that we can’t fault the administration for not deploying the ACE in early January, when most of the western world still considered coronavirus a hypothetical threat, isn’t to say that we can’t fault them for still not having deployed the ACE now, with NYC about to be overrun. Governors were asking for federal help weeks ago, notes the NYT. Oregon requested 400,000 N95 masks on March 3 and finally received a shipment of 36,000 a few days ago. New York requested two million and got 76,000 — all expired. The possibility of a ventilator shortage in a worst-case scenario was perfectly foreseeable many weeks ago. Why not contract with manufacturers at the time to get the ball rolling on that, knowing that even if the threat abated and the ventilators weren’t necessary, it’d be worth having them in the national stockpile?
As I write this, Team Trump apparently still hasn’t placed those orders or invoked the Defense Production Act to cut red tape and allow manufacturers to ramp up production quickly without the usual regulatory hurdles. Per HuffPost, the feds could also charter planes to help transport material needed for manufacture now that supply chains have slowed down. But maybe it’s too late. Companies that build custom-made parts for ventilators are already overtaxed by global demand, which will slow down how quickly they can supply U.S. manufacturers even if planes are available. It would be nice at least to have thousands of new machines online this fall in anticipation of the “second wave” of the disease. Better late than never! But it’s too late already to help people hit by the first wave:
As the United States braces for an onslaught of coronavirus cases, hospitals and governments are confronting a grim reality: There are not nearly enough lifesaving ventilator machines to go around, and there is no way to solve the problem before the disease reaches full throttle. Desperate hospitals say they can’t find anywhere to buy the medical devices, which help patients breathe and can be the difference between life and death for those facing the most dire respiratory effects of the coronavirus. American and European manufacturers say they can’t speed up production enough to meet soaring demand, at least not anytime soon.
The epidemic’s going to go on for 18 months, with multiple waves, according to the feds’ latest projections. We should … probably put those orders in now, no? This crisis doesn’t need to be a total managerial failure, just a grand-scale one.
Ventilators aren’t even the most desperate shortage. Patients dying en masse because care needs to be rationed is a nightmare; doctors and nurses getting infected en masse because they lack masks and other protective gear is a Biblical nightmare since that means the amount of care available will actively shrink. I haven’t seen anything lately news-wise about a burst in production that suggests that shortage will be solved in time.
Here’s Esper last night on Fox assuring views of the military’s readiness to help out. New York City is reportedly already looking at the Javits convention center and potentially Madison Square Garden to house coronavirus patients once local hospitals run out of capacity.
Update: We have some movement.
NEW: NY Gov. Cuomo says President Trump is "immediately" dispatching the USNS Comfort, a US Navy hospital ships with 1,000 rooms and operating rooms, to New York. pic.twitter.com/XVbJQXpBaZ — MSNBC (@MSNBC) March 18, 2020
The Vox piece linked up top stresses that hospital ships are obviously primed for battlefield injuries, not for pandemics and quarantines. The plan in New York, in all likelihood, will be to have actual hospitals focusing more heavily on coronavirus while sending patients who need treatment for other reasons to the ship.
Update: More movement at 12:10 p.m. ET:
Trump announces he will be invoking the Defense Production Act, "just in case we need it." "In other words – I think you all know what it is. And it can do a lot of good things if we need it. And we will have it all completed, signing it in just a little while." — Daniel Dale (@ddale8) March 18, 2020
FEMA’s coordinating center has also now been activated. That NYT story seems to have shaken things up.


hotair--2020-03-18--Breaking: Trump, Trudeau announce US, Canada "mutually consent" to shut bor

Breaking: Trump, Trudeau announce US, Canada "mutually consent" to shut border; Update: Closed borders making a comeback?

Rumors began circulating earlier this morning that the exception announced by Justin Trudeau on Monday on access into and out of Canada might not last long .
Not long after reports emerged that the US and Canada had agreed in principle to close the longest unmilitarized border in the world , Donald Trump made it more or less official : The U.S. and Canada have agreed to temporarily close their shared border to nonessential travel , President Donald Trump announced Wednesday as the two nations work to stem the spread of the coronavirus pandemic .
Both countries are eager to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but also maintain their vital economic relationship .
Canada relies on the U.S. for 75 % of its exports .
… Truck drivers and Canadian snowbirds , who live in the U.S. for part of the year and are returning to Canada , are among those expected to get an exemption .
Completely closing the border would cause severe economic damage to both the U.S. and Canada as the two economies are integrated .
Much of Canada ’ s food supply comes from or via the U.S. , and and 98 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ About 18 % of American exports go to Canada .
Trudeau addressed the issue of returning Canadians in his announcement Monday , so that was likely already a settled issue .
Truck drivers and support personnel for the trading relationship will be a trickier issue to settle .
One would imagine that both countries will want testing to screen for COVID-19 to prevent any new transmissions .
Otherwise , trade is too critical for both countries to stop it , but especially for Canada .
With people on both sides of the border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this may be more of a formality .
The biggest issue now will be residents repatriating back home , which shouldn ’ t take long , and then whatever economic damage comes from the lack of exchange across the border .
Since that will likely pale in comparison to the damage done by effectively sheltering in place the next few weeks , closing the border to non-essential traffic — but keeping trade going — makes a lot of sense .
It also makes political sense .
Closed borders are making a public-policy comeback @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll : A majority of people across 12 nations think the borders of their country should be closed until the coronavirus outbreak is contained , according to the latest Ipsos survey .
In a survey of 12,000 people across 12 major countries from March 12 to 15 , countries in the Asia-Pacific region are most supportive of border closures – led by India ( 79 % ) and Vietnam ( 78 % ) ̶ which is not surprising , given where the disease was first encountered .
More than 3 in 4 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spot , Italy ( 76 % ) , are also in agreement of this drastic measure followed by those in China ( 73 % ) , and Russia ( 70 % ) .
… Meanwhile , the countries that saw the biggest jump in this measure from a previous poll conducted on February 28-29 are all developed markets – the U.K. ( +31 points ) , Australia ( +29 ) , and Canada ( +28 ) .
Don ’ t think for a moment that this will reduce dramatically after the peak of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either .
As I wrote earlier , we have lived in a generation without epidemics or significantly close wars , for the most part , and the utopian allure of open borders were a luxury we could afford .
Now that we understand the value of strong borders that can be closed when necessary , especially unilaterally , it will be at least another generation before we see people start drifting back to a serious embrace of open-borders philosophy .

Rumors began circulating earlier this morning that the exception announced by Justin Trudeau on Monday on access into and out of Canada might not last long. Not long after reports emerged that the US and Canada had agreed in principle to close the longest unmilitarized border in the world, Donald Trump made it more or less official:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1240271178692005889
Trudeau followed suit a few minutes ago:
WATCH LIVE: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks about the coronavirus response, as Canada and the U.S. suspend non-essential travel at their border https://t.co/yMZlZ5gV1w pic.twitter.com/jHgUXJYCr5 — CBS News (@CBSNews) March 18, 2020
The U.S. and Canada have agreed to temporarily close their shared border to nonessential travel, President Donald Trump announced Wednesday as the two nations work to stem the spread of the coronavirus pandemic. Both countries are eager to choke off the spread of the virus but also maintain their vital economic relationship. Canada relies on the U.S. for 75% of its exports. … Truck drivers and Canadian snowbirds, who live in the U.S. for part of the year and are returning to Canada, are among those expected to get an exemption. Completely closing the border would cause severe economic damage to both the U.S. and Canada as the two economies are integrated. Much of Canada’s food supply comes from or via the U.S., and and 98% of its oil exports go to the U.S. About 18% of American exports go to Canada.
Trudeau addressed the issue of returning Canadians in his announcement Monday, so that was likely already a settled issue. Truck drivers and support personnel for the trading relationship will be a trickier issue to settle. One would imagine that both countries will want testing to screen for COVID-19 to prevent any new transmissions. Otherwise, trade is too critical for both countries to stop it, but especially for Canada.
With people on both sides of the border hunkering down for the duration anyway, this may be more of a formality. The biggest issue now will be residents repatriating back home, which shouldn’t take long, and then whatever economic damage comes from the lack of exchange across the border. Since that will likely pale in comparison to the damage done by effectively sheltering in place the next few weeks, closing the border to non-essential traffic — but keeping trade going — makes a lot of sense.
It also makes political sense. Closed borders are making a public-policy comeback, according to this new international Ipsos poll:
A majority of people across 12 nations think the borders of their country should be closed until the coronavirus outbreak is contained, according to the latest Ipsos survey. In a survey of 12,000 people across 12 major countries from March 12 to 15, countries in the Asia-Pacific region are most supportive of border closures – led by India (79%) and Vietnam (78%) ̶ which is not surprising, given where the disease was first encountered. More than 3 in 4 people in the world’s other hot spot, Italy (76%), are also in agreement of this drastic measure followed by those in China (73%), and Russia (70%). … Meanwhile, the countries that saw the biggest jump in this measure from a previous poll conducted on February 28-29 are all developed markets – the U.K. (+31 points), Australia (+29), and Canada (+28).
Don’t think for a moment that this will reduce dramatically after the peak of the pandemic comes to an end, either. As I wrote earlier, we have lived in a generation without epidemics or significantly close wars, for the most part, and the utopian allure of open borders were a luxury we could afford. Now that we understand the value of strong borders that can be closed when necessary, especially unilaterally, it will be at least another generation before we see people start drifting back to a serious embrace of open-borders philosophy.


hotair--2020-03-18--Am I a bad person for not caring if the airlines go bankrupt?

I suppose we should have seen this one coming .
With much of the nation on lockdown and travel to and from other countries being largely curtailed , far fewer people are flying .
Also , trapping yourself in a closed cabin , tightly packed in with a hundred other people , any one of whom might be an asymptomatic carrier of the virus , isn ’ t anybody ’ s idea of a good time even if you need to get to some domestic destination .
As a result , numerous flights are being canceled every day and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only half full .
The result ?
Industry experts are warning that all the major airlines could be facing bankruptcy in the next couple of months .
( Daily Caller ) The Center for Aviation ( CAPA ) , a market intelligence company , warned Sunday that most airlines will be bankrupt by the end of May because of various travel restrictions imposed around the world as the novel coronavirus spreads .
Numerous countries have taken steps to shut down because of the virus .
The U.S. has banned travel from Europe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Spain have either completely or largely shut down their borders .
“ As the impact of the coronavirus and multiple government travel reactions sweep through our world , many airlines have probably already been driven into technical bankruptcy , or are at least substantially in breach of debt covenants , ” CAPA wrote in its Sunday report .
The title of this post is at least partly sarcastic .
I understand that there will be very real-world repercussions for regular working people if all of our major airlines go underwater financially .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including many lower-skill middle-class jobs .
United Airlines has already warned its staff that layoffs will likely be coming in the near future .
That would put a huge hole in our employment picture and impact countless families around the country .
With all of that said , however , it ’ s difficult for me not to feel at least a little bit vindictive .
The major airlines have been punishing their customers for years now with constantly decreasing levels of service , increasingly tiny seats , disappearing legroom and overbooked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though it ’ s almost impossible to prove in court these days .
The airlines give us plenty of excuses to hate them , so pardon me if I ’ m a tad shy on sympathy at the moment .
Also , this is only a temporary condition .
One way or another , the coronavirus epidemic will pass .
At that point , demand for air travel will return to normal and where a demand exists , the free market will generate the supply to meet it .
The airplanes will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ return to service .
Pilots will still need jobs .
The airports will have to serve customers and most of the displaced workers will be back on the payrolls .
It ’ s not as if the airlines are in some sort of unique situation , by the way .
That ’ s why I ’ m annoyed at all this talk of a suggested bailout for the airlines .
Restaurants and bars all over the nation are in danger of closing .
One of the veterinarians where we live just laid off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s their bailout ?
For Pete ’ s sake , even the New York Times is saying you shouldn ’ t be feeling too sorry for the airlines .
Any time you can find the Gray Lady and me agreeing on something , it ’ s probably not all that crazy .
These are the rules of the free market .
The most capable airlines will survive and make their way back to profitability .
Who knows ?
Perhaps some competitiveness will return to the industry as a result and the service won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the meantime , they ’ ll have to tighten their belts just like everyone else .
And if the President wants to push for a bailout he ’ ll be getting an earful from me about it .

I suppose we should have seen this one coming. With much of the nation on lockdown and travel to and from other countries being largely curtailed, far fewer people are flying. Also, trapping yourself in a closed cabin, tightly packed in with a hundred other people, any one of whom might be an asymptomatic carrier of the virus, isn’t anybody’s idea of a good time even if you need to get to some domestic destination. As a result, numerous flights are being canceled every day and the ones that do take off are frequently only half full. The result? Industry experts are warning that all the major airlines could be facing bankruptcy in the next couple of months. (Daily Caller)
The Center for Aviation (CAPA), a market intelligence company, warned Sunday that most airlines will be bankrupt by the end of May because of various travel restrictions imposed around the world as the novel coronavirus spreads. Numerous countries have taken steps to shut down because of the virus. The U.S. has banned travel from Europe, and countries such as Denmark, Italy and Spain have either completely or largely shut down their borders. “As the impact of the coronavirus and multiple government travel reactions sweep through our world, many airlines have probably already been driven into technical bankruptcy, or are at least substantially in breach of debt covenants,” CAPA wrote in its Sunday report.
The title of this post is at least partly sarcastic. I understand that there will be very real-world repercussions for regular working people if all of our major airlines go underwater financially. U.S. airlines employ roughly ten million people, including many lower-skill middle-class jobs. United Airlines has already warned its staff that layoffs will likely be coming in the near future. That would put a huge hole in our employment picture and impact countless families around the country.
With all of that said, however, it’s difficult for me not to feel at least a little bit vindictive. The major airlines have been punishing their customers for years now with constantly decreasing levels of service, increasingly tiny seats, disappearing legroom and overbooked flights. They obviously engage in price-fixing, though it’s almost impossible to prove in court these days. The airlines give us plenty of excuses to hate them, so pardon me if I’m a tad shy on sympathy at the moment.
Also, this is only a temporary condition. One way or another, the coronavirus epidemic will pass. At that point, demand for air travel will return to normal and where a demand exists, the free market will generate the supply to meet it. The airplanes will still be out there, waiting to return to service. Pilots will still need jobs. The airports will have to serve customers and most of the displaced workers will be back on the payrolls.
It’s not as if the airlines are in some sort of unique situation, by the way. That’s why I’m annoyed at all this talk of a suggested bailout for the airlines. Restaurants and bars all over the nation are in danger of closing. One of the veterinarians where we live just laid off half of their staff. Where’s their bailout? For Pete’s sake, even the New York Times is saying you shouldn’t be feeling too sorry for the airlines. Any time you can find the Gray Lady and me agreeing on something, it’s probably not all that crazy.
These are the rules of the free market. The most capable airlines will survive and make their way back to profitability. Who knows? Perhaps some competitiveness will return to the industry as a result and the service won’t be so awful. In the meantime, they’ll have to tighten their belts just like everyone else. And if the President wants to push for a bailout he’ll be getting an earful from me about it.


hotair--2020-03-18--Great idea or privacy concern? Feds, tech giants discussing use of smartphone tracking for social-di

Great idea or privacy concern? Feds, tech giants discussing use of smartphone tracking for social-distancing modeling

Are you complying with calls for social distancing ?
Keeping six feet or more away from others , strangers or not ?
Only your smartphone may know for sure — and that means the tech giants can find out , and so can the government , in a general manner .
The Washington Post reports that federal officials are working with smartphone providers and the tech industry to model compliance with coronavirus advice , although only in aggregated statistical form .
For now , some might say .
Is this the start of Big Coronabrother ?
The U.S. government is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a wide array of tech companies and health experts about how they can use location data gleaned from Americans ’ phones to combat the novel coronavirus , including tracking whether people are keeping one another at safe distances to stem the outbreak .
Public-health experts are interested in the possibility that private-sector companies could compile the data in anonymous , aggregated form , which they could then use to map the spread of the infection , according to three people familiar with the effort , who spoke on the condition of anonymity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stages .
Analyzing trends in smartphone owners ’ whereabouts could prove to be a powerful tool for health authorities looking to track coronavirus , which has infected more than 180,000 people globally .
But it ’ s also an approach that could leave some Americans uncomfortable , depending on how it ’ s implemented , given the sensitivity when it comes to details of their daily whereabouts .
Multiple sources stressed that — if they proceed — they are not building a government database .
They don ’ t call it an electronic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convenience of mapping applications has led most consumers of smartphones to default into providing precise tracking information from their devices .
This is almost always entirely benign , and under normal circumstances isn ’ t necessarily even remarkable .
Law enforcement can get access to that data for specific individuals , but only in the same manner as it can get access to other data — through subpoenas and probable cause .
This isn ’ t being used for that kind of specificity — and it wouldn ’ t make much sense to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source for the Post ’ s article takes pains to note that the data will be aggregated for statistical use and “ anonymized , ” stripped of individual identification .
The idea is to improve the models for COVID-19 transmission and prevention , with an eye to updating advice and public response policies as the crisis unfolds : Will this kind of data actually help ?
It might not be timely enough for this pandemic .
It will take time to analyze all of the movement data collected , perhaps months or years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better precision in preventing viral spread and flattening transmission curves .
It could help develop better models for the next outbreak , and as long as we have global trade and travel with countries that feature “ wet markets , ” the next outbreak is inevitable .
At least that time we would have a more rational basis for public policy if this data proves useful .
People have good reason to be nervous about government acquiring more and more of their data from tech giants , including and especially location data .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an issue for targeting individuals , not for a Big Brother police state .
Consider the resources it would take to track everyone through systems like this , especially in real time , which isn ’ t needed or even useful for the research purposes of this effort .
It ’ s simply impossible to accomplish , let alone react in enough time to deal with transgressors in that manner .
There are over 300 million people in this country , and not nearly enough eyeballs to keep up with that kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have trouble keeping up with electronic home-detention systems for actual surveillance .
Those systems are not fail-proof in normal circumstances , and now that some jurisdictions are emptying out jails , the upsurge in use of these systems will tax already-stressed law enforcement resources to keep up with violators .
That presents a real problem as we err on the side of caution to keep jails from filling up — which is another reason why we ’ re not going to see Big Coronabrother looking for reasons to overcrowd holding pens .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ just how much of our privacy we surrender when we sign up for free services on our computers and our smartphones .
As I have often advised , if the service is free , you ’ re not the customer .
If that makes some uncomfortable , then either do without the service or find a way to pay for it without allowing intrusive data trawling .

Are you complying with calls for social distancing? Keeping six feet or more away from others, strangers or not? Only your smartphone may know for sure — and that means the tech giants can find out, and so can the government, in a general manner. The Washington Post reports that federal officials are working with smartphone providers and the tech industry to model compliance with coronavirus advice, although only in aggregated statistical form.
For now, some might say. Is this the start of Big Coronabrother?
The U.S. government is in active talks with Facebook, Google and a wide array of tech companies and health experts about how they can use location data gleaned from Americans’ phones to combat the novel coronavirus, including tracking whether people are keeping one another at safe distances to stem the outbreak. Public-health experts are interested in the possibility that private-sector companies could compile the data in anonymous, aggregated form, which they could then use to map the spread of the infection, according to three people familiar with the effort, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the project is in its early stages. Analyzing trends in smartphone owners’ whereabouts could prove to be a powerful tool for health authorities looking to track coronavirus, which has infected more than 180,000 people globally. But it’s also an approach that could leave some Americans uncomfortable, depending on how it’s implemented, given the sensitivity when it comes to details of their daily whereabouts. Multiple sources stressed that — if they proceed — they are not building a government database.
They don’t call it an electronic leash for nothing. The ease and convenience of mapping applications has led most consumers of smartphones to default into providing precise tracking information from their devices. This is almost always entirely benign, and under normal circumstances isn’t necessarily even remarkable. Law enforcement can get access to that data for specific individuals, but only in the same manner as it can get access to other data — through subpoenas and probable cause.
This isn’t being used for that kind of specificity — and it wouldn’t make much sense to use it any other way. Every source for the Post’s article takes pains to note that the data will be aggregated for statistical use and “anonymized,” stripped of individual identification. The idea is to improve the models for COVID-19 transmission and prevention, with an eye to updating advice and public response policies as the crisis unfolds:
At the White House, an official at the Office of Science and Technology Policy, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the government is “encouraged by American technology companies looking to leverage aggregated, anonymized data to glean key insights for covid-19 modeling efforts.” The official added those insights might “help public health officials, researchers, and scientists improve their understanding of the spread of covid-19 and transmission of the disease.”
Will this kind of data actually help? It might not be timely enough for this pandemic. It will take time to analyze all of the movement data collected, perhaps months or years, in order to draw lessons about better precision in preventing viral spread and flattening transmission curves. It could help develop better models for the next outbreak, and as long as we have global trade and travel with countries that feature “wet markets,” the next outbreak is inevitable. At least that time we would have a more rational basis for public policy if this data proves useful.
People have good reason to be nervous about government acquiring more and more of their data from tech giants, including and especially location data. However, that’s more of an issue for targeting individuals, not for a Big Brother police state. Consider the resources it would take to track everyone through systems like this, especially in real time, which isn’t needed or even useful for the research purposes of this effort. It’s simply impossible to accomplish, let alone react in enough time to deal with transgressors in that manner. There are over 300 million people in this country, and not nearly enough eyeballs to keep up with that kind of data.
For that matter, we might have trouble keeping up with electronic home-detention systems for actual surveillance. Those systems are not fail-proof in normal circumstances, and now that some jurisdictions are emptying out jails, the upsurge in use of these systems will tax already-stressed law enforcement resources to keep up with violators. That presents a real problem as we err on the side of caution to keep jails from filling up — which is another reason why we’re not going to see Big Coronabrother looking for reasons to overcrowd holding pens.
Still, this reminds us yet again just how much of our privacy we surrender when we sign up for free services on our computers and our smartphones. As I have often advised, if the service is free, you’re not the customer. If that makes some uncomfortable, then either do without the service or find a way to pay for it without allowing intrusive data trawling.


hotair--2020-03-18--Duncan Hunter is going to prison... probably

For some time now , when the name “ Hunter ” popped up in the news we generally expected to see it followed by “ Biden.
” But there ’ s still another Hunter out there with a story waiting to be told .
That would be former California Congressman Duncan Hunter ( R ) who pleaded guilty last year to a variety of campaign finance abuse charges along with his wife .
His sentencing date finally rolled around yesterday and he received what some observers will probably find to be a rather light punishment .
While prosecutors had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wound up giving the disgraced Congressman eleven months behind bars and three years of probation .
( NBC News ) Former Rep. Duncan Hunter , R-Calif. , was sentenced to 11 months in prison Tuesday for misusing campaign funds .
Hunter pleaded guilty in December to a corruption charge after prosecutors said he and his wife “ converted and stole ” more than a quarter million dollars in campaign funds for their own use over a period of several years… Hunter faced up to five years in prison .
His 11-month sentence includes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Margaret , pleaded guilty last year to conspiracy to misuse campaign funds and was expected to testify against her husband of more than 20 years if the case went to trial .
Hunter ’ s attorneys will no doubt attempt some sort of wrangling to see if they can keep their client out of prison .
One of the more novel approaches would be to argue that the coronavirus pandemic makes the crowded prisons too dangerous so he should be allowed to serve his time in home confinement .
( He wouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Michael Cohen tried the same thing . )
I somehow doubt the judge would look too kindly on that request , however .
Let ’ s face it… half of the country is serving home confinement at this point and Hunter ’ s home doesn ’ t exactly paint a picture of austerity .
We shouldn ’ t be engaging in any sort of partisan bickering here , trying to make excuses for this guy or arguing for a lighter sentence .
He ’ s removed any doubt about his guilt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up a compelling mountain of evidence against him .
The Hunters funneled a massive amount of campaign cash away from his donors for their own personal benefit .
His excuses about vacations to Italy and Hawaii and tuition for his children ’ s schooling somehow being legitimate campaign expenses fell on deaf ears as they should have .
Also , he didn ’ t exactly cover himself in glory when he tried to blame the entire thing on his wife , even though she was involved in handling the campaign ’ s finances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably why she wound up pleading guilty and agreeing to testify against him .
Not a smart move , sir .
Duncan Hunter should probably count himself lucky to have only gotten eleven months .
With good behavior , he may only wind up doing six or seven months .
Also , he almost certainly won ’ t be going to any sort of supermax penitentiary and he ’ ll doubtless receive celebrity isolation for his own protection while on the inside .
At 43 years of age , he ’ s got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he gets out and I ’ d be willing to bet that he still has enough friends in political circles that he ’ ll land on his feet somewhere after his release .
All in all , I ’ d say Hunter has very little to complain about .
And based on his own confession as provided to the court , he brought this all on himself .

For some time now, when the name “Hunter” popped up in the news we generally expected to see it followed by “Biden.” But there’s still another Hunter out there with a story waiting to be told. That would be former California Congressman Duncan Hunter (R) who pleaded guilty last year to a variety of campaign finance abuse charges along with his wife. His sentencing date finally rolled around yesterday and he received what some observers will probably find to be a rather light punishment. While prosecutors had been seeking a five-year term, the judge wound up giving the disgraced Congressman eleven months behind bars and three years of probation. (NBC News)
Former Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., was sentenced to 11 months in prison Tuesday for misusing campaign funds. Hunter pleaded guilty in December to a corruption charge after prosecutors said he and his wife “converted and stole” more than a quarter million dollars in campaign funds for their own use over a period of several years… Hunter faced up to five years in prison. His 11-month sentence includes three years of probation. His wife, Margaret, pleaded guilty last year to conspiracy to misuse campaign funds and was expected to testify against her husband of more than 20 years if the case went to trial.
Hunter’s attorneys will no doubt attempt some sort of wrangling to see if they can keep their client out of prison. One of the more novel approaches would be to argue that the coronavirus pandemic makes the crowded prisons too dangerous so he should be allowed to serve his time in home confinement. (He wouldn’t be the first to attempt it. Michael Cohen tried the same thing.) I somehow doubt the judge would look too kindly on that request, however. Let’s face it… half of the country is serving home confinement at this point and Hunter’s home doesn’t exactly paint a picture of austerity.
We shouldn’t be engaging in any sort of partisan bickering here, trying to make excuses for this guy or arguing for a lighter sentence. He’s removed any doubt about his guilt at this point and the state stacked up a compelling mountain of evidence against him. The Hunters funneled a massive amount of campaign cash away from his donors for their own personal benefit. His excuses about vacations to Italy and Hawaii and tuition for his children’s schooling somehow being legitimate campaign expenses fell on deaf ears as they should have.
Also, he didn’t exactly cover himself in glory when he tried to blame the entire thing on his wife, even though she was involved in handling the campaign’s finances at one point. That’s probably why she wound up pleading guilty and agreeing to testify against him. Not a smart move, sir.
Duncan Hunter should probably count himself lucky to have only gotten eleven months. With good behavior, he may only wind up doing six or seven months. Also, he almost certainly won’t be going to any sort of supermax penitentiary and he’ll doubtless receive celebrity isolation for his own protection while on the inside. At 43 years of age, he’s got plenty of life ahead of him after he gets out and I’d be willing to bet that he still has enough friends in political circles that he’ll land on his feet somewhere after his release.
All in all, I’d say Hunter has very little to complain about. And based on his own confession as provided to the court, he brought this all on himself.


Bernie's choice

Even low voter turnout due to the coronavirus couldn ’ t save Bernie Sanders last night .
Joe Biden is projected to win all three races by healthy margins and end up more than halfway to the delegate total that would assure him the nomination on the first round at the convention .
Bernie didn ’ t even address his supporters after the drubbing he took , but he did release a statement indicating that he plans to stay in the race .
So should he ?
One analysis at the New York Times suggests that he has good reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his supporters .
But there are a couple of other factors to consider that might make it the wrong choice .
Under intense pressure to win nominating contests and already grappling with the effects of the coronavirus on the election , Mr. Sanders and his aides are now struggling to reconcile a sense of resignation and a desire to press on .
Yet even as his path to the nomination looks increasingly bleak , with Mr. Biden favored in three more primaries on Tuesday , some allies are publicly urging Mr. Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for him to continue to pitch voters on a liberal agenda that he has promoted for decades .
“ I want the senator to stay in , ” Nina Turner , one of the campaign ’ s national co-chairs , said in an interview on Monday .
“ I think other voters have a right to have a choice .
This is not a coronation .
We know what happened last time in 2016 — it gave us Donald J. Trump.
” The only real argument in favor of Bernie staying in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highlighted in the excerpt above .
Sanders ’ fans would like to see him continue pressing for a more radically leftist platform at the convention .
You know the drill… Medicare for All , Green New Deal , wealth taxes and all the rest .
But even that isn ’ t a terribly compelling reason .
The only way he could apply any real leverage at the convention would be if he was bringing a sufficient number of delegates to endanger a clear Biden victory .
Does anyone really think that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of the party regulators will be able to thank him for his participation , pat him on the head and send him home .
As much as I ’ d like to see Sanders stay in just to continue beating up Joe Biden all through the spring and into the summer , his own advisers should be pointing out a couple of other things to him .
First of all , the more he exposes Joe ’ s flaws heading into the general election , the weaker he makes him when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
That ’ s great news for some of us , but Bernie has been unwavering in his belief that Trump mustn ’ t be allowed to have a second term .
In that sense , he begins to look a bit selfish and hypocritical if he hangs around .
Another factor to consider ( as with everything these days ) is the coronavirus pandemic .
If Bernie were to drop out , there would be no necessity to hold the rest of the primary elections .
The remaining 25 states could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home and avoid crowded polling places .
That rationale offers Sanders the most dignified exit possible at this point .
He could basically give a farewell speech saying that the fight is important , but the safety of the voters is paramount so he ’ s dropping out to help stop the spread of the contagion .
He ’ d come off looking like a dedicated , caring public servant and less like , well… a loser .
In one sense , we ’ re back to the same point we were in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hillary Clinton would stagger over the finish line .
Bernie is still telling his supporters that the DNC establishment has been trying to torpedo him from the beginning .
( And he ’ s not wrong . )
Last time , a measurable number of Bernie voters either stayed home or voted for Trump .
That wasn ’ t the only factor that cost Hillary the election , but it definitely contributed .
Will history repeat itself this November ?
I certainly hope so .

Even low voter turnout due to the coronavirus couldn’t save Bernie Sanders last night. Joe Biden is projected to win all three races by healthy margins and end up more than halfway to the delegate total that would assure him the nomination on the first round at the convention. Bernie didn’t even address his supporters after the drubbing he took, but he did release a statement indicating that he plans to stay in the race.
So should he? One analysis at the New York Times suggests that he has good reasons to do so, at least according to his supporters. But there are a couple of other factors to consider that might make it the wrong choice.
Under intense pressure to win nominating contests and already grappling with the effects of the coronavirus on the election, Mr. Sanders and his aides are now struggling to reconcile a sense of resignation and a desire to press on. Yet even as his path to the nomination looks increasingly bleak, with Mr. Biden favored in three more primaries on Tuesday, some allies are publicly urging Mr. Sanders to remain in the race, eager for him to continue to pitch voters on a liberal agenda that he has promoted for decades. “I want the senator to stay in,” Nina Turner, one of the campaign’s national co-chairs, said in an interview on Monday. “I think other voters have a right to have a choice. This is not a coronation. We know what happened last time in 2016 — it gave us Donald J. Trump.”
The only real argument in favor of Bernie staying in the race at this point is the one highlighted in the excerpt above. Sanders’ fans would like to see him continue pressing for a more radically leftist platform at the convention. You know the drill… Medicare for All, Green New Deal, wealth taxes and all the rest. But even that isn’t a terribly compelling reason. The only way he could apply any real leverage at the convention would be if he was bringing a sufficient number of delegates to endanger a clear Biden victory. Does anyone really think that’s going to happen? Biden and the rest of the party regulators will be able to thank him for his participation, pat him on the head and send him home.
As much as I’d like to see Sanders stay in just to continue beating up Joe Biden all through the spring and into the summer, his own advisers should be pointing out a couple of other things to him. First of all, the more he exposes Joe’s flaws heading into the general election, the weaker he makes him when it’s time to go toe-to-toe with Trump. That’s great news for some of us, but Bernie has been unwavering in his belief that Trump mustn’t be allowed to have a second term. In that sense, he begins to look a bit selfish and hypocritical if he hangs around.
Another factor to consider (as with everything these days) is the coronavirus pandemic. If Bernie were to drop out, there would be no necessity to hold the rest of the primary elections. The remaining 25 states could simply cancel them and let everyone stay home and avoid crowded polling places. That rationale offers Sanders the most dignified exit possible at this point. He could basically give a farewell speech saying that the fight is important, but the safety of the voters is paramount so he’s dropping out to help stop the spread of the contagion. He’d come off looking like a dedicated, caring public servant and less like, well… a loser.
In one sense, we’re back to the same point we were in 2016 when it finally became clear that Hillary Clinton would stagger over the finish line. Bernie is still telling his supporters that the DNC establishment has been trying to torpedo him from the beginning. (And he’s not wrong.) Last time, a measurable number of Bernie voters either stayed home or voted for Trump. That wasn’t the only factor that cost Hillary the election, but it definitely contributed. Will history repeat itself this November? I certainly hope so.


hotair--2020-03-19--Senate GOP stimulus plan: $1,200 to every adult ASAP, with the amount reduced starting at $75,000 of

Senate GOP stimulus plan: $1,200 to every adult ASAP, with the amount reduced starting at $75,000 of income

Lotta grumbling about this online tonight , and not just from lefties .
There are three basic criticisms : 1 .
The amounts are just too small .
They ’ re especially too small for people who didn ’ t pay federal tax last year because their income was too low .
The GOP ’ s attitude towards these payments , I take it , is that they ’ re a sort of retroactive tax cut : The checks aren ’ t handouts , they ’ re just partial reimbursement of taxes paid last year by Americans .
Logically , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay tax at all would get a smaller cut .
But low earners are doomed to be the people hit hardest by the massive shutdowns caused by the virus ’ s spread .
They ’ ve got to pay the rent too and they ’ ll have the hardest time doing it of any segment of the population .
If you ’ re willing to give them a little something , i.e .
$ 600 , despite the fact that they paid no tax last year , why not give them the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hawley gets it : 2 .
There ’ s no cost-of-living adjustment based on where you live .
A $ 1,200 check will go a lot further for a taxpayer who lives in Mississippi than it will for one who lives in New York City .
It ’ s a rent payment for the former but emphatically not for the latter .
If the feds are about to sink further into debt that ’ ll plague us for decades — and what choice do they have right now ?
— we might as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , not just token amounts that don ’ t solve meaningful problems .
That starts with COLA .
3 .
This isn ’ t the time for means-testing .
I wrote in favor of means-testing the checks a few days ago on grounds that the thousand bucks will be pocketed by higher earners , reducing the stimulus effect of the checks , and won ’ t be enough to pay the bills for lower earners .
Why not reduce the amount given to the former and increase the amount given to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in favor of sending a flat amount to every adult , though — namely that every second counts .
If we pick a number and give everyone the same cut , those checks can go out immediately .
No fancy time-wasting calculations about adjusted gross income necessary .
Just cut the g-ddamned checks already .
People will have rent to pay less than two weeks from now .
That idea is coming from the left… …but also from the right .
“ Nope .
Nope .
Nope .
No means-testing , ” wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s proposal .
“ People who were doing well last year are watching their businesses go up in flames this year .
If you don ’ t need the money , donate the money.
” Michael Brendan Dougherty made the same point .
Normally conservatives trust individuals to make better decisions than the government about what to do with their money , right ?
Well , same with the stimulus .
Cut the checks now , providing one flat sum across the board for all taxpayers , and let every adult who doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a better use .
Yes , some millionaires and even a few billionaires may get these little assistance checks if the government rushes them out .
If Congress is really sore about 1 percenters , it can find a way to add a surcharge to income taxes in the future , clawing the money back as revenue .
But as it becomes clear in the weeks ahead how painful these shutdowns will be , I expect that Americans who are retaining their salaries will intelligently donate and redirect universal aid to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never design a program of aid to help .
Making the aid universal makes it faster and more effective .
Allowing citizens to make millions of separate and decentralized judgments about the needs in their communities will also make the aid more effective overall .
This isn ’ t a normal recession in which firms , entrepreneurs , and workers are alerted to “ malinvestment ” in the economy and asked to readjust .
The service sector doesn ’ t deserve in any way the pain being inflicted on it .
So let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as if we ’ re teaching citizens a lesson .
That sounds more in line with what Trump and Steve Mnuchin have in mind .
Mnuchin wants $ 1,000 for every adult to start , plus $ 500 for each child .
A family of four would get $ 3,000 irrespective of income .
And not just as a one-time payment , either .
Mnuchin ’ s imagining another payment six weeks from now if we ’ re still in a widespread lockdown by then .
There are other provisions in the GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as a delay in payroll taxes owed by employers and more than $ 200 billion in loans and loan guarantees for businesses .
That includes $ 50 billion for airlines .
Note to Trump : A plan that would shower billions on air carriers while nickel-and-diming low-earning people with $ 600 checks is not a good look for a populist .
Consider it carefully .
As for the prospect of passage in the Senate , hmmmm : Mitch , my boy , you really , really , really should consider remote voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post on that , in fact .
By the way , here ’ s the House ’ s counterproposal : Read our own Ed Morrissey at The Week today on why the new stimulus is a bailout that even the tea party could and should support .
We ’ re not saving banks from the consequences of their own terrible decisions here .
We ’ re rescuing wage-earners from a once-in-a-century epidemic that ’ s forced their businesses to shutter for the sake of the common good .
Exit question : What would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic-related stimulus in a world where Hillary edged out Trump in 2016 and now had to manage the coronavirus epidemic ?
They ’ d be more willing to go along with it than they were with the 2009 bank bailout given the unusual circumstances of this intervention , but how much more ?
Fiscal conservatism would have been a far more urgent concern within the party since 2017 in that reality than in this one .

Lotta grumbling about this online tonight, and not just from lefties.
GOP bill on immediate checks: — $1,200 per person ($2,400 if filing jointly)
— $500 per kid
— Begins to phase out above $75K
— Phases out completely above $99K
— Much smaller benefit, of $600, for millions w/o federal tax liability pic.twitter.com/mPggn8eepS — Jeff Stein (@JStein_WaPo) March 19, 2020
There are three basic criticisms:
1. The amounts are just too small. They’re especially too small for people who didn’t pay federal tax last year because their income was too low. The GOP’s attitude towards these payments, I take it, is that they’re a sort of retroactive tax cut: The checks aren’t handouts, they’re just partial reimbursement of taxes paid last year by Americans. Logically, then, people who didn’t pay tax at all would get a smaller cut. But low earners are doomed to be the people hit hardest by the massive shutdowns caused by the virus’s spread. They’ve got to pay the rent too and they’ll have the hardest time doing it of any segment of the population. If you’re willing to give them a little something, i.e. $600, despite the fact that they paid no tax last year, why not give them the same $1,200 as everyone else? Josh Hawley gets it:
Relief to families in this emergency shouldn’t be regressive. Lower-income families shouldn’t be penalized — Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) March 19, 2020
2. There’s no cost-of-living adjustment based on where you live. A $1,200 check will go a lot further for a taxpayer who lives in Mississippi than it will for one who lives in New York City. It’s a rent payment for the former but emphatically not for the latter. If the feds are about to sink further into debt that’ll plague us for decades — and what choice do they have right now? — we might as well make the money truly helpful to people, not just token amounts that don’t solve meaningful problems. That starts with COLA.
3. This isn’t the time for means-testing. I wrote in favor of means-testing the checks a few days ago on grounds that the thousand bucks will be pocketed by higher earners, reducing the stimulus effect of the checks, and won’t be enough to pay the bills for lower earners. Why not reduce the amount given to the former and increase the amount given to the latter? There’s a counterargument in favor of sending a flat amount to every adult, though — namely that every second counts. If we pick a number and give everyone the same cut, those checks can go out immediately. No fancy time-wasting calculations about adjusted gross income necessary. Just cut the g-ddamned checks already. People will have rent to pay less than two weeks from now.
That idea is coming from the left…
“In an interview with The Atlantic today, Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA), a leading progressive, criticized Pelosi, saying ‘The fact that the speaker’s talking about refundable tax credits … Who has time to wait to do their taxes and see what they get a year from now?’” https://t.co/SgoX6UHnI9 — Akela Lacy (@akela_lacy) March 19, 2020
…but also from the right. “Nope. Nope. Nope. No means-testing,” wrote David French about the Senate GOP’s proposal. “People who were doing well last year are watching their businesses go up in flames this year. If you don’t need the money, donate the money.” Michael Brendan Dougherty made the same point. Normally conservatives trust individuals to make better decisions than the government about what to do with their money, right? Well, same with the stimulus. Cut the checks now, providing one flat sum across the board for all taxpayers, and let every adult who doesn’t need the money redirect it to a better use.
Yes, some millionaires and even a few billionaires may get these little assistance checks if the government rushes them out. If Congress is really sore about 1 percenters, it can find a way to add a surcharge to income taxes in the future, clawing the money back as revenue. But as it becomes clear in the weeks ahead how painful these shutdowns will be, I expect that Americans who are retaining their salaries will intelligently donate and redirect universal aid to the needy people and charities that Congress could never design a program of aid to help. Making the aid universal makes it faster and more effective. Allowing citizens to make millions of separate and decentralized judgments about the needs in their communities will also make the aid more effective overall. This isn’t a normal recession in which firms, entrepreneurs, and workers are alerted to “malinvestment” in the economy and asked to readjust. The service sector doesn’t deserve in any way the pain being inflicted on it. So let’s not try to set rules as if we’re teaching citizens a lesson.
That sounds more in line with what Trump and Steve Mnuchin have in mind. Mnuchin wants $1,000 for every adult to start, plus $500 for each child. A family of four would get $3,000 irrespective of income. And not just as a one-time payment, either. Mnuchin’s imagining another payment six weeks from now if we’re still in a widespread lockdown by then.
There are other provisions in the GOP bill for business, of course, such as a delay in payroll taxes owed by employers and more than $200 billion in loans and loan guarantees for businesses. That includes $50 billion for airlines. Note to Trump: A plan that would shower billions on air carriers while nickel-and-diming low-earning people with $600 checks is not a good look for a populist. Consider it carefully. As for the prospect of passage in the Senate, hmmmm:
Fox News is told McConnell did not yet have the votes on his side, and that the situation was complicated by the fact that two Republicans have self-quarantined. The GOP holds a slim 53-47 majority in the Senate, with Vice President Mike Pence the possible tiebreaking vote.
Mitch, my boy, you really, really, really should consider remote voting for senators. Stay tuned for a post on that, in fact.
By the way, here’s the House’s counterproposal:
This #COVID19 proposal out of the house financial committee is really good: – 2k/month per person every month of the crisis
– suspension of all mortgages, student loans, credit card and loan payments
– prohibit debt collection and repossession
– $5b in homeless assistance pic.twitter.com/qX5IOwHWnS — Max Berger (@maxberger) March 19, 2020
Read our own Ed Morrissey at The Week today on why the new stimulus is a bailout that even the tea party could and should support. We’re not saving banks from the consequences of their own terrible decisions here. We’re rescuing wage-earners from a once-in-a-century epidemic that’s forced their businesses to shutter for the sake of the common good. Exit question: What would the GOP attitude be towards a trillion-dollar pandemic-related stimulus in a world where Hillary edged out Trump in 2016 and now had to manage the coronavirus epidemic? They’d be more willing to go along with it than they were with the 2009 bank bailout given the unusual circumstances of this intervention, but how much more? Fiscal conservatism would have been a far more urgent concern within the party since 2017 in that reality than in this one.


hotair--2020-03-19--Extinction Rebellion hopes to move climate activism online in wake of coronavirus

What do you do if you have a climate activist group whose basic strategy is to create a public spectacle but suddenly a dangerous virus is keeping everyone home ?
The plan for some of these groups , including Extinction Rebellion , is to move the activism online .
The coronavirus outbreak has prompted climate activists to abandon public demonstrations , one of their most powerful tools for raising public awareness , and shift to online protests… A coalition of climate movements had planned huge protests around commemorations for the 50th annual Earth Day in April .
Those have now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group , Earth Initiative and March for Science New York City , plans to live-stream speakers and performers at an online event .
Greta Thunberg has also moved her activism online in light of the virus : But not everyone is convinced the online activism will have the same impact : Some experts , however , said reaching world leaders and the general public would be more difficult now as the pandemic shuts down large parts of public life .
“ What you ’ re going to end up doing is amplifying within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different from what the movement wants , ” said Dana Fisher , a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland whose research focuses on activism .
Twitter hashtags , like # ClimateStrikeOnline and # DigitalClimateStrike , are far less visible than huge crowds in the streets , she said .
But Extinction Rebellion is trying to keep its supporters optimistic about online activism : The group has promoted this guidance for supporters which includes advice like this once in-person gatherings are no longer allowed/recommended : VIRTUAL PROTEST : Ask those who in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to write a sign and take a photo of themselves ( w friends and/or family ) .
Organizers can print out all the photos and attach to cardboard to display publicly .
For example , they could be laid out in front of a Chase bank or other target , possibly with a chalk outline of a person around it .
Your group could also make a sign explaining that for public health reasons people are protesting at home… SOCIAL MEDIA BARRAGE : people may have more time to be on a computer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s products .
Organize a coordinated take-down of various publicly reviewed products and brands to apply pressure on your target .
I ’ m not convinced they are going to get the same level of public attention with this sort of thing , which happens online all the time , as they have been with stunts like digging up the lawn at Trinity College .
The whole energy behind Extinction Rebellion was the idea that the kind of climate extremism we routinely see online was entering the real world .
Taking that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a retreat .
I suspect it won ’ t be as successful , but I guess we ’ ll have to wait and see .

What do you do if you have a climate activist group whose basic strategy is to create a public spectacle but suddenly a dangerous virus is keeping everyone home? The plan for some of these groups, including Extinction Rebellion, is to move the activism online.
The coronavirus outbreak has prompted climate activists to abandon public demonstrations, one of their most powerful tools for raising public awareness, and shift to online protests… A coalition of climate movements had planned huge protests around commemorations for the 50th annual Earth Day in April. Those have now been canceled or moved online. One group, Earth Initiative and March for Science New York City, plans to live-stream speakers and performers at an online event.
Greta Thunberg has also moved her activism online in light of the virus:
School strike week 82. In a crisis we change our behaviour and adapt to the new circumstances for the greater good of society. Join the #DigitalStrike – post a pic of you with a sign and use #ClimateStrikeOnline ! #schoolstrike4climate #fridaysforfuture #climatestrike #COVIDー19 pic.twitter.com/fZkjqN3DOw — Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) March 13, 2020
But not everyone is convinced the online activism will have the same impact:
Some experts, however, said reaching world leaders and the general public would be more difficult now as the pandemic shuts down large parts of public life. “What you’re going to end up doing is amplifying within an echo chamber, which is really different from what the movement wants,” said Dana Fisher, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland whose research focuses on activism. Twitter hashtags, like #ClimateStrikeOnline and #DigitalClimateStrike, are far less visible than huge crowds in the streets, she said.
But Extinction Rebellion is trying to keep its supporters optimistic about online activism:
The Rebellion will continue, and while we make sure to #StayHome and not infect each others, we are re-organizing on our online platforms!
👉Join us on MATTERMOST: https://t.co/QAjWnhnN09
👉Join us on DISCOURSE:https://t.co/ysVv7h5jfM
Take care of yourselfs and others💆♀💆 pic.twitter.com/v5BKOknoXO — Extinction Rebellion Belgium (@XR_Belgium) March 18, 2020
The group has promoted this guidance for supporters which includes advice like this once in-person gatherings are no longer allowed/recommended:
VIRTUAL PROTEST: Ask those who in normal times would have attended the protest to write a sign and take a photo of themselves (w friends and/or family). Organizers can print out all the photos and attach to cardboard to display publicly. For example, they could be laid out in front of a Chase bank or other target, possibly with a chalk outline of a person around it. Your group could also make a sign explaining that for public health reasons people are protesting at home… SOCIAL MEDIA BARRAGE: people may have more time to be on a computer and post negative reviews of your target’s products. Organize a coordinated take-down of various publicly reviewed products and brands to apply pressure on your target.
I’m not convinced they are going to get the same level of public attention with this sort of thing, which happens online all the time, as they have been with stunts like digging up the lawn at Trinity College.
The whole energy behind Extinction Rebellion was the idea that the kind of climate extremism we routinely see online was entering the real world. Taking that activity back to digital space seems like a retreat. I suspect it won’t be as successful, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see.


hotair--2020-03-19--Is Seattle flattening the curve?

Is Seattle flattening the curve?

The evidence isn ’ t conclusive yet , but this is worth watching .
The key finding there isn ’ t that there were fewer positives yesterday than the day before .
We can ’ t know that for sure ; at the moment , the data from yesterday includes around half as many tests as the day before so naturally we ’ d expect fewer positives .
The key finding is that even if we assume that there were actually twice as many positives yesterday as the graph indicates , that would be roughly equal to the number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ re not seeing exponential growth .
The Seattle Times published this graph tracking infections in Washington state today : Starting on February 28 and continuing all the way through March 14 , in each period the new daily number is at least 50 percent greater than the previous total .
But then , on March 16 , it slows down slightly : Instead of 1,154 cases on March 18 ( which is what we ’ d expect if the 769 cases on March 14 grew by 50 percent over two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead .
Yesterday ’ s number of 1,187 infections is an even lower percentage of the previous total , ALTHOUGH those numbers reflect the total only as of 4 p.m. Seattle time yesterday .
The final daily number will doubtless end up bigger .
But it would have to end up a *lot* bigger than 1,187 to keep pace with the “ previous day + 50 percent ” rule .
That would project to 1,518 infections by close of business yesterday .
If it falls short of that , this will be circumstantial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the proverbial curve via mass social distancing efforts .
Which would make sense .
They were the site of the first major outbreak in the U.S. , at the Life Care Center nursing home .
Washington was also the subject of that genomic analysis early this month that pointed strongly towards undetected community spread locally at a moment when most of the rest of the country was taking COVID-19 in stride .
They were hunkered down and distancing themselves before most of the rest of us were .
It stands to reason that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flatten out .
We ’ ll need more data to be sure but data will be plentiful soon as testing ramps up nationally .
Meanwhile , Philip Klein asks the question on everyone ’ s mind : When does the “ hunkering down ” period end ?
We ’ re not going to shut down the economy until a vaccine is ready next year .
We need a middle ground between holing up in bunkers and doing COVID-19 keg stands in Daytona .
In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks , life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We just had to endure added inconveniences like taking off our shoes at airports and having our bags checked at sporting events .
I think we need to get to the point where we think of this in a similar way .
That is , it ’ s possible we ’ ll consider temperature checks in airports , sporting events , and other crowded places .
We ’ ll need to have more disinfecting of public areas .
Maybe bars and restaurants are allowed to reopen but with much lower maximum capacity limitations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separate hours for those over 60 , and maybe that practice gets extended to movie theaters , which then have to ramp up sanitation between showings .
Small-ball stuff like that will definitely happen , even without people being formally instructed to do it .
Business owners won ’ t want their shops knows as infection pits , hubs of local outbreaks .
They ’ ll likely insist on some physical distance between customers .
Surgical masks will be commonly worn in public once they ’ re widely available again , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by people who don ’ t know they have the disease .
Temperature checks are already happening for reporters at the White House .
Basic precautions will spread virally through the culture just as the virus itself spreads through the population .
What every scientist I ’ ve read this week seems to agree on , though , is that robust testing is the crucial step .
It ’ s not a sufficient condition for a return to something approximating normalcy , but it ’ s absolutely necessary .
Trevor Bedford , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread in his city earlier this month via genetic analysis , proposed these three steps last night , starting with “ massive testing.
” Everlywell , a home testing company based in Texas , is already planning a home coronavirus test for the low , low price of , uh , $ 135 .
The sort of smart-tech surveillance that Bedford has in mind was the subject of two separate posts on this site yesterday .
Scott Gottlieb has also been talking up serological treatments lately developed from the antibodies of people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to provide some temporary protection from infection for front-line health-care workers as they treat patients .
If our bureaucracy can get its act together — and I have zero faith that it can — all of this is what the “ new normal ” will look like this fall , as we wait for the second wave of the disease and then a vaccine next year .
The part I have trouble grasping , though , is the “ massive ” testing regime .
How does that work , exactly , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are asymptomatic ?
Do you test randomly ?
Will large numbers of Americans agree to that ?
Mass testing would be easy if only symptomatic people passed on the virus ; Americans could be asked to seek immediate free screening if they so much as sniffled .
But if people are passing this on before they know they ’ re sick , it seems like the only option is to test them after they present symptoms and then try to work backwards and inform everyone they ’ ve been in contact with over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposed .
Do authorities have the manpower to do that realistically ?

The evidence isn’t conclusive yet, but this is worth watching.
~2300 tests were reported yesterday from @UWVirology @UWMedicine. Positive rate seems stable. Lab running smoothly the first half of today with lots of results going out. Realtime tracker at https://t.co/81ED3b8zk5 pic.twitter.com/8VR32hFrne — UW Virology (@UWVirology) March 18, 2020
The key finding there isn’t that there were fewer positives yesterday than the day before. We can’t know that for sure; at the moment, the data from yesterday includes around half as many tests as the day before so naturally we’d expect fewer positives. The key finding is that even if we assume that there were actually twice as many positives yesterday as the graph indicates, that would be roughly equal to the number of positives on Tuesday. In other words, we’re not seeing exponential growth.
The Seattle Times published this graph tracking infections in Washington state today:
Starting on February 28 and continuing all the way through March 14, in each period the new daily number is at least 50 percent greater than the previous total. But then, on March 16, it slows down slightly: Instead of 1,154 cases on March 18 (which is what we’d expect if the 769 cases on March 14 grew by 50 percent over two days), we see 1,012 cases instead. Yesterday’s number of 1,187 infections is an even lower percentage of the previous total, ALTHOUGH those numbers reflect the total only as of 4 p.m. Seattle time yesterday. The final daily number will doubtless end up bigger.
But it would have to end up a *lot* bigger than 1,187 to keep pace with the “previous day + 50 percent” rule. That would project to 1,518 infections by close of business yesterday. If it falls short of that, this will be circumstantial evidence that Washington state is indeed flattening the proverbial curve via mass social distancing efforts.
Which would make sense. They were the site of the first major outbreak in the U.S., at the Life Care Center nursing home. Washington was also the subject of that genomic analysis early this month that pointed strongly towards undetected community spread locally at a moment when most of the rest of the country was taking COVID-19 in stride. They were hunkered down and distancing themselves before most of the rest of us were. It stands to reason that their curve would be the first to flatten out.
Nate Silver is intrigued too:
Also, here are the daily numbers for King County, WA (Seattle), per @KCPubHealth: 3/8: 12
3/9: 33
3/10: 74
3/11: 44*
3/12: 36
3/13: 58
3/14: 60
3/15: 32
3/16: 68
3/17: 30
3/18: 44 * Having trouble tracking down 3/11 so the number is imputed based on the cumulative case count. — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) March 19, 2020
Major employers in Seattle were also well ahead of the rest of the country in asking employees to work from home. That both helps with social distancing and serves as a signal to people that it's not business-as-usual. https://t.co/QtbbeHKwt9 — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) March 19, 2020
We’ll need more data to be sure but data will be plentiful soon as testing ramps up nationally. Meanwhile, Philip Klein asks the question on everyone’s mind: When does the “hunkering down” period end? We’re not going to shut down the economy until a vaccine is ready next year. We need a middle ground between holing up in bunkers and doing COVID-19 keg stands in Daytona.
In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, life went on in the United States. We just had to endure added inconveniences like taking off our shoes at airports and having our bags checked at sporting events. I think we need to get to the point where we think of this in a similar way. That is, it’s possible we’ll consider temperature checks in airports, sporting events, and other crowded places. We’ll need to have more disinfecting of public areas. Maybe bars and restaurants are allowed to reopen but with much lower maximum capacity limitations. Some grocery stores have already adopted separate hours for those over 60, and maybe that practice gets extended to movie theaters, which then have to ramp up sanitation between showings.
Small-ball stuff like that will definitely happen, even without people being formally instructed to do it. Business owners won’t want their shops knows as infection pits, hubs of local outbreaks. They’ll likely insist on some physical distance between customers. Surgical masks will be commonly worn in public once they’re widely available again, which is good practice given the risk of infection by people who don’t know they have the disease. Temperature checks are already happening for reporters at the White House. Basic precautions will spread virally through the culture just as the virus itself spreads through the population.
What every scientist I’ve read this week seems to agree on, though, is that robust testing is the crucial step. It’s not a sufficient condition for a return to something approximating normalcy, but it’s absolutely necessary. Trevor Bedford, the Seattle researcher who detected the hidden community spread in his city earlier this month via genetic analysis, proposed these three steps last night, starting with “massive testing.”
This rollout of testing could be achieved through at home delivery of swabs with centralized lab-based processing combined with drive-through testing facilities. There are logistics involved in getting a result quickly, but it's really just logistics, which can be solved. 14/19 — Trevor Bedford (@trvrb) March 19, 2020
This strategy targets testing capacity at most likely cases and serves to detect exposure events early, when isolation is most valuable. This cell phone location based approach is outlined carefully here: https://t.co/cu09jbd6zB. 16/19 — Trevor Bedford (@trvrb) March 19, 2020
Individuals who have serological evidence of recovery and are no longer shedding virus can fully return to the workforce and keep society functioning (especially important for those at the clinical front lines). 18/19 — Trevor Bedford (@trvrb) March 19, 2020
Everlywell, a home testing company based in Texas, is already planning a home coronavirus test for the low, low price of, uh, $135. The sort of smart-tech surveillance that Bedford has in mind was the subject of two separate posts on this site yesterday. Scott Gottlieb has also been talking up serological treatments lately developed from the antibodies of people who’ve recovered from the disease in order to provide some temporary protection from infection for front-line health-care workers as they treat patients. If our bureaucracy can get its act together — and I have zero faith that it can — all of this is what the “new normal” will look like this fall, as we wait for the second wave of the disease and then a vaccine next year.
The part I have trouble grasping, though, is the “massive” testing regime. How does that work, exactly, when the disease is spread by people who are asymptomatic? Do you test randomly? Will large numbers of Americans agree to that? Mass testing would be easy if only symptomatic people passed on the virus; Americans could be asked to seek immediate free screening if they so much as sniffled. But if people are passing this on before they know they’re sick, it seems like the only option is to test them after they present symptoms and then try to work backwards and inform everyone they’ve been in contact with over the previous week that they were potentially exposed. Do authorities have the manpower to do that realistically?


hotair--2020-03-19--Hmmm: Iran releases US veteran for "humanitarian" medical reasons -- but won't allow him to leave Ir

Hmmm: Iran releases US veteran for "humanitarian" medical reasons -- but won't allow him to leave Iran

Humanitarian ?
Maybe .
Convenient ?
Perhaps , although certainly insufficient .
Iran has released American veteran Michael White from prison , where he was serving a 13-year sentence for lèse majeste , but they won ’ t allow White to leave the country : Iran has granted a medical furlough to a U.S. Navy veteran who has been imprisoned in Iran for more than a year , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced Thursday .
Michael White of Imperial Beach , California , is now in the custody of the Swiss Embassy and must remain in Iran as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ granted as Iran works to curb the spread of coronavirus .
The U.S. government will seek his full release , Pompeo said , and he called on Iran to free other Americans who remain jailed there .
A spokesman for the White family said the family was grateful to the Iranian government for an “ interim humanitarian step.
” “ We continue to urge them to release Michael unconditionally so that he can return to the United States to receive the advanced medical care he needs , ” spokesman Jon Franks said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iranians are doing out of goodwill .
A week ago , Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif accused the US of “ economic terrorism ” for enforcing sanctions in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic .
The sanctions over Iran ’ s nuclear-weapons development and support for terrorism prevented Iran from selling enough oil to pay for medicines and medical equipment while the COVID-19 virus killed hundreds of Iranians .
Pompeo ’ s response ?
The US would not even consider a stay on sanctions as long as the regime continues to detain Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls on the Islamic Republic of Iran to immediately release on humanitarian grounds all wrongfully detained Americans being held in Iran .
The United States will hold the Iranian regime directly responsible for any American deaths .
Our response will be decisive .
Reports that COVID-19 has spread to Iranian prisons are deeply troubling and demand nothing less than the full and immediate release of all American citizens .
Their detention amid increasingly deteriorating conditions defies basic human decency .
The Iranian regime recently released 70,000 prisoners due to the outbreak of COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and show mercy .
Yet it continues to unjustly detain several American citizens , without cause or justification .
Today , the Washington Post reports that the sanctions are biting even deeper in the midst of the pandemic .
And the US is stepping up the pressure : Under current circumstances , the researchers said , infections would not peak until late May .
The death toll could be as high as 3.5 million .
That figure might seem enough to stop anyone in their tracks .
But this week , the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its sanctions on Iran , as well as on entities that aided the Iranian government in its trade in petrochemicals and other restricted activities .
It ’ s a strategy that worries allies and enemies alike .
The Guardian reported on Wednesday that Britain was privately pressing the United States to ease sanctions on Iran amid the crisis , while China has publicly called on the United States to lift its Iran sanctions .
But the United States , which reimposed sanctions on Iran after President Trump unilaterally pulled out of the nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , has refused ; on Tuesday , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called for Iran to release U.S. citizens being held in the country “ as a humanitarian gesture , given the risk that is posed ” by the coronavirus pandemic .
This appears to be a signal from Tehran that they ’ re looking to cut a deal .
It ’ s not the only release of a foreign national this week , either ; the Iranians also released a British subject who had worked at the Thomson Reuters Foundation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two-week furlough .
Even White ’ s release now appears to be a furlough rather than a full parole , only long enough to have the Swiss medical staff at the embassy check out a cough and fever : White has had a fever and a cough , according to his family , and he is now in the care of the Swiss embassy , which has looked after U.S. interests and citizens in Iran since the U.S. embassy in Tehran was shuttered in 1979 .
He will undergo medical evaluation and treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family and Pompeo .
But as a condition of his parole , he will not be permitted to leave the country — likely to return to Iranian custody instead .
This seems like a tease from Tehran , a way to use hostages by double-dipping — seizing them first , then temporarily releasing them to gain leverage with the US and UK .
If you don ’ t lift sanctions , the implicit threat goes , they ’ ll be back in prison !
The problem for the Iranians is that they don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leverage .
Their Wuhan Flu epidemic is so widespread that they ’ re warning millions could die , and key officials in the government are already sick or have already died of COVID-19 .
If this continues , Iranians might take to the streets to get rid of the regime that trapped them politically , economically , and now medically .
If they want the US to back off , furloughs won ’ t cut it .
They will have to release all their hostages first — while they ’ re still able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s running out , and the clock isn ’ t the enemy of the US in this instance .

Humanitarian? Maybe. Convenient? Perhaps, although certainly insufficient. Iran has released American veteran Michael White from prison, where he was serving a 13-year sentence for lèse majeste, but they won’t allow White to leave the country:
Iran has granted a medical furlough to a U.S. Navy veteran who has been imprisoned in Iran for more than a year, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced Thursday. Michael White of Imperial Beach, California, is now in the custody of the Swiss Embassy and must remain in Iran as a condition of his furlough, which was granted as Iran works to curb the spread of coronavirus. The U.S. government will seek his full release, Pompeo said, and he called on Iran to free other Americans who remain jailed there. A spokesman for the White family said the family was grateful to the Iranian government for an “interim humanitarian step.” “We continue to urge them to release Michael unconditionally so that he can return to the United States to receive the advanced medical care he needs,” spokesman Jon Franks said.
This isn’t just something the Iranians are doing out of goodwill. A week ago, Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif accused the US of “economic terrorism” for enforcing sanctions in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic. The sanctions over Iran’s nuclear-weapons development and support for terrorism prevented Iran from selling enough oil to pay for medicines and medical equipment while the COVID-19 virus killed hundreds of Iranians.
Pompeo’s response? The US would not even consider a stay on sanctions as long as the regime continues to detain Americans, Pompeo declared:
The United States calls on the Islamic Republic of Iran to immediately release on humanitarian grounds all wrongfully detained Americans being held in Iran. The United States will hold the Iranian regime directly responsible for any American deaths. Our response will be decisive. Reports that COVID-19 has spread to Iranian prisons are deeply troubling and demand nothing less than the full and immediate release of all American citizens. Their detention amid increasingly deteriorating conditions defies basic human decency. The Iranian regime recently released 70,000 prisoners due to the outbreak of COVID-19, demonstrating its ability to grant clemency and show mercy. Yet it continues to unjustly detain several American citizens, without cause or justification.
Today, the Washington Post reports that the sanctions are biting even deeper in the midst of the pandemic. And the US is stepping up the pressure:
Under current circumstances, the researchers said, infections would not peak until late May. The death toll could be as high as 3.5 million. That figure might seem enough to stop anyone in their tracks. But this week, the United States announced that it would be expanding its sanctions on Iran, as well as on entities that aided the Iranian government in its trade in petrochemicals and other restricted activities. It’s a strategy that worries allies and enemies alike. The Guardian reported on Wednesday that Britain was privately pressing the United States to ease sanctions on Iran amid the crisis, while China has publicly called on the United States to lift its Iran sanctions. But the United States, which reimposed sanctions on Iran after President Trump unilaterally pulled out of the nuclear agreement with Iran and other nations in 2018, has refused; on Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called for Iran to release U.S. citizens being held in the country “as a humanitarian gesture, given the risk that is posed” by the coronavirus pandemic.
There’s a simple fix for this: stop holding Americans hostage.
This appears to be a signal from Tehran that they’re looking to cut a deal. It’s not the only release of a foreign national this week, either; the Iranians also released a British subject who had worked at the Thomson Reuters Foundation, although they apparently structured it as a two-week furlough. Even White’s release now appears to be a furlough rather than a full parole, only long enough to have the Swiss medical staff at the embassy check out a cough and fever:
White has had a fever and a cough, according to his family, and he is now in the care of the Swiss embassy, which has looked after U.S. interests and citizens in Iran since the U.S. embassy in Tehran was shuttered in 1979. He will undergo medical evaluation and treatment in Swiss care, according to his family and Pompeo. But as a condition of his parole, he will not be permitted to leave the country — likely to return to Iranian custody instead.
This seems like a tease from Tehran, a way to use hostages by double-dipping — seizing them first, then temporarily releasing them to gain leverage with the US and UK. If you don’t lift sanctions, the implicit threat goes, they’ll be back in prison! The problem for the Iranians is that they don’t actually have that kind of leverage. Their Wuhan Flu epidemic is so widespread that they’re warning millions could die, and key officials in the government are already sick or have already died of COVID-19. If this continues, Iranians might take to the streets to get rid of the regime that trapped them politically, economically, and now medically.
If they want the US to back off, furloughs won’t cut it. They will have to release all their hostages first — while they’re still able to make that call. Time’s running out, and the clock isn’t the enemy of the US in this instance.