hotair--2020-05-13--Judge to DoJ: Not so fast on Flynn withdrawal

When the Department of Justice moved to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn , I wrote that the change put Judge Emmet Sullivan in an awkward position .
Sullivan had all but accused the former national security adviser of treason at one point during the case , and issued a barely veiled threat to force Flynn to keep working with prosecutors , even though the DoJ had already proclaimed themselves satisfied with his cooperation .
The sudden reversal by the DoJ has lots of potential to embarrass Sullivan as people examine this case in the future .
Therefore , how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to collect some bon mots to put on the record on his own behalf ?
A federal judge overseeing the criminal case of President Trump ’ s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn opened the door late Tuesday for legal experts and other outside parties to oppose the Justice Department ’ s motion to drop the case , suggesting he has at least some skepticism about the government ’ s argument that Mr. Flynn should never have been charged .
In a brief order , Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Columbia said he would set a schedule for outside parties to present arguments about the government ’ s request to dismiss the case .
He did not directly address the Justice Department ’ s motion to drop the charge , but legal experts said he appeared open to considering not only the department ’ s arguments but also those who have challenged its move as politically motivated .
This is , at the very least , quite curious in a criminal prosecution at the district-court level .
Amicus briefs usually don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Flynn case is at the sentencing phase , where other testimony might be heard on mitigation or punishment .
A dismissal motion by prosecutors , however , amounts to a forfeit by the only entity with authority to pursue a case .
Sullivan might not like it , but how does he sustain a prosecution without the prosecuting authority ’ s cooperation , regardless of how many amicus briefs might cross his threshold ?
Judges in the American legal system don ’ t have that authority , which explicitly resides in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filed its own brief reminding Sullivan that not only is a prosecution without prosecutors an absurdity , Sullivan has a track record of refusing amicus briefs in the Flynn case until now : Mr. Flynn ’ s legal team immediately objected to Judge Sullivan ’ s decision .
The lawyers were likely worried that the judge was inviting a wide-ranging , public discussion of whether the Justice Department was inventing legal arguments in order to help one of the president ’ s allies , legal experts said .
“ This court has consistently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occasions — summarily refused to permit any third party to inject themselves or their views into this case , ” the defense said in a motion filed after the judge ’ s order .
“ Only the Department of Justice and the defense can be heard.
” If Sullivan truly wants outside opinions on this issue , Flynn ’ s legal team advised Sullivan to renew his subscription to the Washington Post : The DoJ also weighed in on this topic in its motion to dismiss , Paul Mirengoff points out at Power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dismiss pending charges “ lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion ” , ” they wrote , “ and “ at the core of the Executive ’ s duty to see to the faithful execution of the laws.
” ” The technicality here is that Sullivan could argue that the charges stopped being “ pending ” when Flynn pled guilty , and that withdrawing from the sentencing doesn ’ t impact the conclusion of guilt from the plea .
Good luck getting that one past the appellate court , but Sullivan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vindication more than an enduring result , and these briefs might give him a stage for his own argument for such vindication .
The Washington Post envisions Sullivan using the amicus process to hold a hearing that would essentially replace the trial phase that Flynn ’ s plea short circuited .
Only this time , it would have two defendants in the dock — Flynn and William Barr .
That has some potential for backfiring , even if Sullivan doesn ’ t see it at the moment : Sullivan ’ s invitation could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which one or more attorneys argue against the Justice Department .
It would also permit , if the judge chooses , to require sides to produce evidence and revisit the case for and against Flynn .
In an evidentiary hearing , Sullivan could call witnesses , such as Flynn , his investigators or even prosecutors , to obtain more facts about how the case was handled and why Flynn and agents took the steps they did .
Just how many of the people involved in the Flynn case will want to testify under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dug up , Sullivan had better expect them to take the Fifth if called to the stand , which is going to put even more egg on Sullivan ’ s face in the end .
Or — and this is a possibility — perhaps that ’ s precisely what Sullivan wants out of the process .
If he humiliates the FBI and the Mueller team that misrepresented the case in his court , then that would give Sullivan a chance to turn the tables and ream them out for a while .
Good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow that circus to come to town , too .
Either way , it ’ s exceedingly strange .
Flynn ’ s team will likely appeal this decision , and the DoJ might too .
However , our Red State colleague Shipwreckedcrew — himself a former Assistant US Attorney — thinks this could be nothing more than a limiting strategy to deal with an avalanche of amicus briefs that would have arrived anyway : He also believes that Sullivan committed reversible error in accepting Flynn ’ s guilty plea in the first place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been reversed anyway , so perhaps this is Sullivan ’ s way of distancing himself from the error .
Be sure to read more of his detailed and intriguing argument .

When the Department of Justice moved to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn, I wrote that the change put Judge Emmet Sullivan in an awkward position. Sullivan had all but accused the former national security adviser of treason at one point during the case, and issued a barely veiled threat to force Flynn to keep working with prosecutors, even though the DoJ had already proclaimed themselves satisfied with his cooperation. The sudden reversal by the DoJ has lots of potential to embarrass Sullivan as people examine this case in the future.
Therefore, how surprising is it that Sullivan might want to collect some bon mots to put on the record on his own behalf?
A federal judge overseeing the criminal case of President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn opened the door late Tuesday for legal experts and other outside parties to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to drop the case, suggesting he has at least some skepticism about the government’s argument that Mr. Flynn should never have been charged. In a brief order, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia said he would set a schedule for outside parties to present arguments about the government’s request to dismiss the case. He did not directly address the Justice Department’s motion to drop the charge, but legal experts said he appeared open to considering not only the department’s arguments but also those who have challenged its move as politically motivated.
This is, at the very least, quite curious in a criminal prosecution at the district-court level. Amicus briefs usually don’t apply to criminal trials, although technically the Flynn case is at the sentencing phase, where other testimony might be heard on mitigation or punishment. A dismissal motion by prosecutors, however, amounts to a forfeit by the only entity with authority to pursue a case. Sullivan might not like it, but how does he sustain a prosecution without the prosecuting authority’s cooperation, regardless of how many amicus briefs might cross his threshold? Judges in the American legal system don’t have that authority, which explicitly resides in the executive branch.
Flynn’s defense filed its own brief reminding Sullivan that not only is a prosecution without prosecutors an absurdity, Sullivan has a track record of refusing amicus briefs in the Flynn case until now:
Mr. Flynn’s legal team immediately objected to Judge Sullivan’s decision. The lawyers were likely worried that the judge was inviting a wide-ranging, public discussion of whether the Justice Department was inventing legal arguments in order to help one of the president’s allies, legal experts said. “This court has consistently — on twenty-four (24) previous occasions — summarily refused to permit any third party to inject themselves or their views into this case,” the defense said in a motion filed after the judge’s order. “Only the Department of Justice and the defense can be heard.”
If Sullivan truly wants outside opinions on this issue, Flynn’s legal team advised Sullivan to renew his subscription to the Washington Post:
The defense also sought to play down the potential contributions of outsiders. “Former prosecutors are all free to submit opinion pieces to assorted media outlets — as many have already done — but this court is not a forum for their alleged special interest,” Mr. Flynn’s lawyers wrote.
The DoJ also weighed in on this topic in its motion to dismiss, Paul Mirengoff points out at Power Line. “[D]ecisions to dismiss pending charges “lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion”,” they wrote, “and “at the core of the Executive’s duty to see to the faithful execution of the laws.”” The technicality here is that Sullivan could argue that the charges stopped being “pending” when Flynn pled guilty, and that withdrawing from the sentencing doesn’t impact the conclusion of guilt from the plea.
Good luck getting that one past the appellate court, but Sullivan might not care. He may want vindication more than an enduring result, and these briefs might give him a stage for his own argument for such vindication. The Washington Post envisions Sullivan using the amicus process to hold a hearing that would essentially replace the trial phase that Flynn’s plea short circuited. Only this time, it would have two defendants in the dock — Flynn and William Barr.
That has some potential for backfiring, even if Sullivan doesn’t see it at the moment:
Sullivan’s invitation could set the stage for adversarial proceedings in which one or more attorneys argue against the Justice Department. It would also permit, if the judge chooses, to require sides to produce evidence and revisit the case for and against Flynn. In an evidentiary hearing, Sullivan could call witnesses, such as Flynn, his investigators or even prosecutors, to obtain more facts about how the case was handled and why Flynn and agents took the steps they did.
Just how many of the people involved in the Flynn case will want to testify under oath? Given everything that Jeffrey Jensen dug up, Sullivan had better expect them to take the Fifth if called to the stand, which is going to put even more egg on Sullivan’s face in the end. Or — and this is a possibility — perhaps that’s precisely what Sullivan wants out of the process. If he humiliates the FBI and the Mueller team that misrepresented the case in his court, then that would give Sullivan a chance to turn the tables and ream them out for a while.
Good luck on getting the appellate court to allow that circus to come to town, too.
Either way, it’s exceedingly strange. Flynn’s team will likely appeal this decision, and the DoJ might too. However, our Red State colleague Shipwreckedcrew — himself a former Assistant US Attorney — thinks this could be nothing more than a limiting strategy to deal with an avalanche of amicus briefs that would have arrived anyway:
Not sure yet there is anything nefarious in Sullivan opening up filing to AC briefs. He's going to get them. If he sets parameters and a time frame, then he can limit how many, and then cut them off. They may come in by the dozens. — shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) May 12, 2020
He also believes that Sullivan committed reversible error in accepting Flynn’s guilty plea in the first place. That means he’d likely have been reversed anyway, so perhaps this is Sullivan’s way of distancing himself from the error. Be sure to read more of his detailed and intriguing argument.


hotair--2020-05-13--Grocery prices spike - highest monthly jump since 1974

The good news is that the price of gasoline , clothing , car insurance , airline fares , and hotel stays have dropped .
The bad news is that the price of your grocery bill is higher .
The price of groceries went up in April by a monthly jump not seen for forty-six years .
The price of the items in the categories that dropped does not affect every consumer .
Not everyone drives , or travels by air , or needs a hotel room .
Everyone needs food .
We can blame the coronavirus pandemic for this turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ price increases , you probably have , too .
An increase in the price of eggs has been especially noticeable , as well as some shortages , too .
At the end of March , the average price for a dozen eggs was $ 3.01 .
At the beginning of March , the price was 94 cents .
This jump seems to have led the way .
One item isn ’ t a crisis , even with something as necessary as eggs for the home cook .
Supermarkets were increasing their normal orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumer demand .
This was actually good news for egg producers who experienced a money-losing year last year .
The short supply is expected to last a while , though .
It takes up to five months to raise a hen to its egg-laying age .
It is not anticipated that farmers will expand their flocks .
Eggs are an inexpensive source of protein and a staple in kitchens .
Grocers say it is hard to ask customers to pay more for eggs but costs are going up and they are losing money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive of Southeastern Grocers , said : “ Egg is by far the steepest and the fastest in terms of the speed of increase.
” Prices are the highest they have been since the avian influenza of 2015 and supply is likely to get tighter , said Mr. Hucker , who heads the chain of more than 700 stores that includes the Winn-Dixie and Bi-Lo chains .
Randy Edeker , president of Midwest grocery chain Hy-Vee Inc. , said it is hard to ask consumers to pay more for eggs and other protein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up .
Eggs have long been a cheap source of protein for low-income families , food-industry officials said .
“ Costs are going up right now , ” Mr. Edeker said .
“ We ’ re just going to have to lose money on eggs.
” Lincoln , Neb.-based B & R Stores Inc. is selling a dozen eggs for $ 2.48 , though the chain is paying $ 2.93 , up from 98 cents two weeks prior .
Some products are also increasing in price , but not as much as eggs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ price of ground beef increased by 25 % or $ 1 higher per pound , and chicken and pork prices went up by roughly 15 % .
“ We ’ re all selling eggs below market price .
On a staple item like eggs , there are times when you make money and times when you lose money , ” said Mark Griffin , president of B & R Stores .
So , with short supplies of eggs developing and their prices rising in March , it probably shouldn ’ t be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is surprising , though , the intensity of price increases .
Maybe price increases aren ’ t so noticeable on one or two items but increase food items across the board in several categories and it all adds up by the end of a shopping trip .
Add an increase in grocery prices to the stress already felt by millions of newly-unemployed workers due to the economic shutdown brought by the coronavirus pandemic and its not what families need now .
Following eggs in price increases were other sources of protein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
U.S. consumers paid 4.3 percent more in April for meats , poultry , fish and eggs , 1.5 percent more for fruits and vegetables , and 2.9 percent more for cereals and bakery products , the Labor Department said .
Overall , consumers paid 2.6 percent more in April for groceries , the largest one-month jump since February 1974 .
The jump in food prices came in a month when more than 20 million Americans lost their jobs , driving 1 in 5 households into food insecurity .
The increase in food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broader decline in the basket of goods that makes up the U.S. consumer price index , which fell 0.8 percent in April , the largest single-month decline since 2008 .
The jump in prices of cereals and bakery products was the single steepest increase in a single month going back to 1919 .
This is something easily felt by grocery shoppers , especially low-income families with children at home all the time now and not eating meals at school .
Breakfast cereal and bread for sandwiches at lunchtime are standard fare for kids @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restaurants closed to dining and limited to pick-up or delivery service , the increase in grocery store purchases will continue and meat-industry analysts predict pricing spikes will continue through May .
Overall , food purchased at grocery stores ( the “ food at home ” index ) has risen 4.1 percent over the last 12 months .
The bureau ’ s Consumer Price Index Summary , released Tuesday , said the price increases were “ broad-based ” across all six major grocery groupings in the “ food at home ” index , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” over March .
The Bureau of Labor Statistics noted , however , that methods of data collection were hindered slightly by the ongoing coronavirus health crisis , as “ data collection by personal visit ” had been suspended since March 16 .
That information was instead collected online or via the phone .
Tuesday ’ s Consumer Price Index Summary comes after meat-industry analysts and insiders predicted an increase in the prices of meat at the supermarket , with some predicting continued spikes into May .
In April , the U.S. Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prices , on average , had tripled since the beginning of March due to shortages and demand .
The price of food from restaurants rose just 0.1 % in April after a 0.2 % increase in March .
Let ’ s hope food producers and grocers can stabilize the price increases in food items and transition smoothly once restaurants re-open and the demands of grocery stores shift again .

The good news is that the price of gasoline, clothing, car insurance, airline fares, and hotel stays have dropped. The bad news is that the price of your grocery bill is higher. The price of groceries went up in April by a monthly jump not seen for forty-six years.
The price of the items in the categories that dropped does not affect every consumer. Not everyone drives, or travels by air, or needs a hotel room. Everyone needs food. We can blame the coronavirus pandemic for this turn of events. I’ve noticed price increases, you probably have, too.
An increase in the price of eggs has been especially noticeable, as well as some shortages, too. At the end of March, the average price for a dozen eggs was $3.01. At the beginning of March, the price was 94 cents. This jump seems to have led the way. One item isn’t a crisis, even with something as necessary as eggs for the home cook. Supermarkets were increasing their normal orders to stock their egg cases because of consumer demand. This was actually good news for egg producers who experienced a money-losing year last year.
The short supply is expected to last a while, though. It takes up to five months to raise a hen to its egg-laying age. It is not anticipated that farmers will expand their flocks. Eggs are an inexpensive source of protein and a staple in kitchens. Grocers say it is hard to ask customers to pay more for eggs but costs are going up and they are losing money on eggs.
Anthony Hucker, chief executive of Southeastern Grocers, said: “Egg is by far the steepest and the fastest in terms of the speed of increase.” Prices are the highest they have been since the avian influenza of 2015 and supply is likely to get tighter, said Mr. Hucker, who heads the chain of more than 700 stores that includes the Winn-Dixie and Bi-Lo chains. Randy Edeker, president of Midwest grocery chain Hy-Vee Inc., said it is hard to ask consumers to pay more for eggs and other protein as the pandemic drives people to stock up. Eggs have long been a cheap source of protein for low-income families, food-industry officials said. “Costs are going up right now,” Mr. Edeker said. “We’re just going to have to lose money on eggs.” Lincoln, Neb.-based B&R Stores Inc. is selling a dozen eggs for $2.48, though the chain is paying $2.93, up from 98 cents two weeks prior. Some products are also increasing in price, but not as much as eggs. B&R’s wholesale price of ground beef increased by 25% or $1 higher per pound, and chicken and pork prices went up by roughly 15%. “We’re all selling eggs below market price. On a staple item like eggs, there are times when you make money and times when you lose money,” said Mark Griffin, president of B&R Stores.
So, with short supplies of eggs developing and their prices rising in March, it probably shouldn’t be a surprise that other prices have now risen. It is surprising, though, the intensity of price increases. Maybe price increases aren’t so noticeable on one or two items but increase food items across the board in several categories and it all adds up by the end of a shopping trip. Add an increase in grocery prices to the stress already felt by millions of newly-unemployed workers due to the economic shutdown brought by the coronavirus pandemic and its not what families need now. Following eggs in price increases were other sources of protein – meats, poultry, and fish.
U.S. consumers paid 4.3 percent more in April for meats, poultry, fish and eggs, 1.5 percent more for fruits and vegetables, and 2.9 percent more for cereals and bakery products, the Labor Department said. Overall, consumers paid 2.6 percent more in April for groceries, the largest one-month jump since February 1974. The jump in food prices came in a month when more than 20 million Americans lost their jobs, driving 1 in 5 households into food insecurity. The increase in food prices was in marked contrast to a broader decline in the basket of goods that makes up the U.S. consumer price index, which fell 0.8 percent in April, the largest single-month decline since 2008.
The jump in prices of cereals and bakery products was the single steepest increase in a single month going back to 1919. This is something easily felt by grocery shoppers, especially low-income families with children at home all the time now and not eating meals at school. Breakfast cereal and bread for sandwiches at lunchtime are standard fare for kids, as well as adults.
With restaurants closed to dining and limited to pick-up or delivery service, the increase in grocery store purchases will continue and meat-industry analysts predict pricing spikes will continue through May. Overall, food purchased at grocery stores (the “food at home” index) has risen 4.1 percent over the last 12 months.
The bureau’s Consumer Price Index Summary, released Tuesday, said the price increases were “broad-based” across all six major grocery groupings in the “food at home” index, with each jumping “at least 1.5 percent” over March. The Bureau of Labor Statistics noted, however, that methods of data collection were hindered slightly by the ongoing coronavirus health crisis, as “data collection by personal visit” had been suspended since March 16. That information was instead collected online or via the phone. Tuesday’s Consumer Price Index Summary comes after meat-industry analysts and insiders predicted an increase in the prices of meat at the supermarket, with some predicting continued spikes into May. In April, the U.S. Department of Agriculture had also reported that egg prices, on average, had tripled since the beginning of March due to shortages and demand.
The price of food from restaurants rose just 0.1% in April after a 0.2% increase in March. Let’s hope food producers and grocers can stabilize the price increases in food items and transition smoothly once restaurants re-open and the demands of grocery stores shift again.


hotair--2020-05-14--Shutdown cinema review: The surprisingly subversive <i>Upload</i>

“ I ’ m not even supposed to be here , ” Nathan Brown laments at one point as he morosely explores the man-made afterlife in Amazon Prime ’ s new comic-mystery series Upload .
I felt the same way a few times over the ten-episode series , both for its somewhat uneven comic balance , as well as a bit of woke didactic along the way .
However , the series proves surprisingly engaging — and surprisingly subversive , in its own fashion .
Upload starts off with the death of Nathan ( Robbie Amell ) in 2033 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , top-dollar virtual reality for the recently departed .
The circumstances of Nathan ’ s death — and the sudden way his fiancée Ingrid ( Allegra Edwards ) pushed him to give up and upload to the man-made afterlife — provide the main crux of the mystery that Nathan must unravel from the Not So Great Beyond .
Nathan had been working on a similar product , but someone keeps stealing his memories so that he can ’ t recall what precisely happened to him .
Can his “ angel ” Nora ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rep , help him find out the truth — and will Nathan like what he finds ?
It ’ s tough to get a read on Upload at first .
Initially , and off and on throughout , it keeps making denigrating references to capitalism , and it passes on no opportunity to flog that theme , which quickly gets tiresome .
The nadir of that effort comes in the form of superbillionaire “ David Choak , ” a most unimaginative ( and extremely unfair ) reference to the recently passed libertarian industrialist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t turn out to be all bad — even though he has clearly taken it all with him in the end and plans to get even more when he can .
Other political themes get a lighter , more subtle touch , and one has to wish that they had taken that approach more consistently .
None of that is particularly subversive or surprising , especially in the context of today ’ s entertainment environment .
What does seem subversive is the unmistakable pro-religion thread running through Upload .
One of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nora ’ s terminally ill father Dave ( Chris Williams ) , refuses to engage “ Horizen , ” the firm where Nora works because he argues that the man-made environments are soulless .
Dave is one of the “ Ludds , ” the slang term used by upload advocates about their critics ( Luddites , obviously ) , and they appear to get blamed for actions taken by the powers that be behind the upload industry .
Dave tries to get his daughter to understand that her mother , long since deceased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God , the real heaven to which Dave aspires .
Even beyond that , though , Upload has another subversive element to it , which may or may not be intentional .
What becomes apparent is that humans can not build Utopia , not even in a virtual afterlife , and especially not in the real world .
Even Lakeview , which is the top of the line upload experience , has errors and flaws , gaps which get exploited by the customers , and manipulations by those in the real world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best example of this , but to say more would be to get into spoilers .
Horizen and its Lakeview “ matrix , ” and uploading in general are the ultimate in social engineering , and it just doesn ’ t work .
If it weren ’ t for the occasional nudity , sexual situations , and adult language , one might have thought that it was the covert project of *gasp* committed Christians .
And its highlighting of the spiritual essence of humanity and the shortcomings of man-made utopias serves to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s clear leaning toward socialism , whether or not the creators intended that outcome .
Maybe we should pretend we haven ’ t noticed , at least not until they produce Season Two .
Upload sometimes gets lost in those contradictions , and at times the subplots and comic relief seems a little forced , but by the end of the first season it works pretty well .
It may not be everyone ’ s cup of tea , but for original content in these shelter-in-place days , viewers could do much worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Hot Air scale for subscription-service series , Upload gets a 3 : 4 – Subscribe to the service to watch this 3 – Make time to watch it if you already subscribe 2 – Worth a watch if nothing else appeals 1 – Avoid at all costs Upload is rated TV-MA for very good reasons , including a couple of surprisingly graphic scenes of violence .
It ’ s not for the kids or younger teens , but your older teens might be mature enough to deal with it .

“I’m not even supposed to be here,” Nathan Brown laments at one point as he morosely explores the man-made afterlife in Amazon Prime’s new comic-mystery series Upload. I felt the same way a few times over the ten-episode series, both for its somewhat uneven comic balance, as well as a bit of woke didactic along the way. However, the series proves surprisingly engaging — and surprisingly subversive, in its own fashion.
Upload starts off with the death of Nathan (Robbie Amell) in 2033 and his rebirth into Lakeview, a tony, top-dollar virtual reality for the recently departed. The circumstances of Nathan’s death — and the sudden way his fiancée Ingrid (Allegra Edwards) pushed him to give up and upload to the man-made afterlife — provide the main crux of the mystery that Nathan must unravel from the Not So Great Beyond. Nathan had been working on a similar product, but someone keeps stealing his memories so that he can’t recall what precisely happened to him. Can his “angel” Nora (Andy Allo), a customer service rep, help him find out the truth — and will Nathan like what he finds?
It’s tough to get a read on Upload at first. Initially, and off and on throughout, it keeps making denigrating references to capitalism, and it passes on no opportunity to flog that theme, which quickly gets tiresome. The nadir of that effort comes in the form of superbillionaire “David Choak,” a most unimaginative (and extremely unfair) reference to the recently passed libertarian industrialist and philanthropist David Koch. Choak doesn’t turn out to be all bad — even though he has clearly taken it all with him in the end and plans to get even more when he can. Other political themes get a lighter, more subtle touch, and one has to wish that they had taken that approach more consistently.
None of that is particularly subversive or surprising, especially in the context of today’s entertainment environment. What does seem subversive is the unmistakable pro-religion thread running through Upload. One of the most sympathetic characters in the series, Nora’s terminally ill father Dave (Chris Williams), refuses to engage “Horizen,” the firm where Nora works because he argues that the man-made environments are soulless. Dave is one of the “Ludds,” the slang term used by upload advocates about their critics (Luddites, obviously), and they appear to get blamed for actions taken by the powers that be behind the upload industry. Dave tries to get his daughter to understand that her mother, long since deceased, is in the actual afterlife with God, the real heaven to which Dave aspires.
Even beyond that, though, Upload has another subversive element to it, which may or may not be intentional. What becomes apparent is that humans cannot build Utopia, not even in a virtual afterlife, and especially not in the real world. Even Lakeview, which is the top of the line upload experience, has errors and flaws, gaps which get exploited by the customers, and manipulations by those in the real world. The relationship between Nathan and Ingrid provides the best example of this, but to say more would be to get into spoilers. Horizen and its Lakeview “matrix,” and uploading in general are the ultimate in social engineering, and it just doesn’t work. If it weren’t for the occasional nudity, sexual situations, and adult language, one might have thought that it was the covert project of *gasp* committed Christians. And its highlighting of the spiritual essence of humanity and the shortcomings of man-made utopias serves to either balance or undermine the show’s clear leaning toward socialism, whether or not the creators intended that outcome.
Maybe we should pretend we haven’t noticed, at least not until they produce Season Two.
Upload sometimes gets lost in those contradictions, and at times the subplots and comic relief seems a little forced, but by the end of the first season it works pretty well. It may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but for original content in these shelter-in-place days, viewers could do much worse than give Upload a try.
On the Hot Air scale for subscription-service series, Upload gets a 3:
4 – Subscribe to the service to watch this
3 – Make time to watch it if you already subscribe
2 – Worth a watch if nothing else appeals
1 – Avoid at all costs
Upload is rated TV-MA for very good reasons, including a couple of surprisingly graphic scenes of violence. It’s not for the kids or younger teens, but your older teens might be mature enough to deal with it.


hotair--2020-05-14--Where is Christine Blasey Ford and why hasn't she said anything about Tara Reade?

There a new story at Bloomberg today headlined , “ Democratic Women Urge Stronger Biden Response in Tara Reade Case.
” Here ’ s how it opens : Democratic activists and women ’ s groups say they saw a familiar and distressing playbook unfolding when Joe Biden addressed the sexual assault allegation against him by denying them and largely moving on .
Now , they ’ re trying to convince Biden that if he doesn ’ t continue to address the issue head on , he risks depressing turnout of women voters , potentially giving a boost to President Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Democratic activists and women ’ s groups who previously went silent about the allegations are finally stepping up ?
Well , not really .
In fact , if you keep reading what you find is that “ Democratic activists and women ’ s groups ” seems to refer to just two women .
The first is Lucy Flores : “ The fact that he has to be pressured every single time something in his past is brought up , a mistake that he ’ s made , a position that he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a complete failure as it relates to leadership , ” said Lucy Flores , a former Democratic state assemblywoman in Nevada who has accused Biden of touching her inappropriately .
“ This isn ’ t to discount some of the good things that Joe Biden has done , and that ’ s part of his problem is that he tries to constantly use some of the good things that he has done as if it settles all of his debts in some way and it doesn ’ t , ” she added , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for him , but knows a number of women who say they do not think they can stomach it .
Those other women who can ’ t stomach voting for Biden aren ’ t identified .
The other person who does speak openly is Shaunna Thomas of UltraViolet : “ Anybody on the Democratic side who doesn ’ t think that Republicans who want to destroy Biden aren ’ t going to raise this repeatedly and leverage the channels that they ’ ve built to spread disinformation , misinformation , and voter suppression @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t going to use this issue to depress votes particularly among women in swing states — they are mistaken , ” said Shaunna Thomas , co-founder of UltraViolet , a women ’ s rights advocacy group .
“ The idea that if you stop talking it goes away has already been disproven.
” So , credit to those two ladies I guess , but that ’ s really the extent of the push back at this point , i.e .
one Biden accuser who plans to support him anyway and one women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worried about Republicans seizing ( as they are wont to do ) on the allegation .
The only other person quoted in the story is Christine Pelosi .
She thinks the DC police should investigate Reade ’ s claim .
That sounds good but she ’ s pretending the incident isn ’ t already well beyond the statute of limitations and she ’ s ignoring the fact that the DC police have already put Reade ’ s case on “ inactive ” status because of that .
This rather pathetic level of support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to all the other activists , Democrats and women ’ s group leaders who were so vocally supportive of Christine Blasey Ford .
And that ’ s when it hit me .
Okay , I don ’ t actually know that ’ s true .
But Christine Blasey Ford wasn ’ t whisked away from earth in 2018 .
She ’ s still out there somewhere reading the news .
She knows about Tara Reade and , so far , she hasn ’ t offered a word of public support about her allegation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tara Reade made a point of saying she believed Christine Blasey Ford in her interview with Megyn Kelly .
Isn ’ t it pretty remarkable that Ford has remained silent ?
Has anyone in the media even tried to ask Blasey Ford if she believes Reade ?
Did reporters at every news outlet suddenly lose her number after the confirmation ?
Given the media comparisons between the two women over the past several weeks , it really does seem like an obvious avenue to pursue .
So why hasn ’ t the media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we certainly haven ’ t heard about it in public .
Maybe that ’ s because either way Ford answers the questions creates a problem for Democrats .
If she doesn ’ t believe Reade , that really would be a blow to # BelieveWomen and the people who rallied to believe Ford .
If Ford does believe Reade , that makes it a lot more uncomfortable for Biden supporters and feminists to downplay or ignore Reade ’ s allegations .
I suspect the media aren ’ t asking Dr. Ford what she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Democrats in doing so .

There’s a new story at Bloomberg today headlined, “Democratic Women Urge Stronger Biden Response in Tara Reade Case.” Here’s how it opens:
Democratic activists and women’s groups say they saw a familiar and distressing playbook unfolding when Joe Biden addressed the sexual assault allegation against him by denying them and largely moving on. Now, they’re trying to convince Biden that if he doesn’t continue to address the issue head on, he risks depressing turnout of women voters, potentially giving a boost to President Donald Trump.
Wow! Does this mean that Democratic activists and women’s groups who previously went silent about the allegations are finally stepping up? Well, not really. In fact, if you keep reading what you find is that “Democratic activists and women’s groups” seems to refer to just two women. The first is Lucy Flores:
“The fact that he has to be pressured every single time something in his past is brought up, a mistake that he’s made, a position that he’s taken, etcetera, is just a complete failure as it relates to leadership,” said Lucy Flores, a former Democratic state assemblywoman in Nevada who has accused Biden of touching her inappropriately. “This isn’t to discount some of the good things that Joe Biden has done, and that’s part of his problem is that he tries to constantly use some of the good things that he has done as if it settles all of his debts in some way and it doesn’t,” she added, pointing out that she will still vote for him, but knows a number of women who say they do not think they can stomach it.
Those other women who can’t stomach voting for Biden aren’t identified. The other person who does speak openly is Shaunna Thomas of UltraViolet:
“Anybody on the Democratic side who doesn’t think that Republicans who want to destroy Biden aren’t going to raise this repeatedly and leverage the channels that they’ve built to spread disinformation, misinformation, and voter suppression content — people that think they aren’t going to use this issue to depress votes particularly among women in swing states — they are mistaken,” said Shaunna Thomas, co-founder of UltraViolet, a women’s rights advocacy group. “The idea that if you stop talking it goes away has already been disproven.”
So, credit to those two ladies I guess, but that’s really the extent of the push back at this point, i.e. one Biden accuser who plans to support him anyway and one women’s group co-founder who seems mostly worried about Republicans seizing (as they are wont to do) on the allegation.
The only other person quoted in the story is Christine Pelosi. She thinks the DC police should investigate Reade’s claim. That sounds good but she’s pretending the incident isn’t already well beyond the statute of limitations and she’s ignoring the fact that the DC police have already put Reade’s case on “inactive” status because of that.
This rather pathetic level of support for Reade had me wondering what happened to all the other activists, Democrats and women’s group leaders who were so vocally supportive of Christine Blasey Ford. And that’s when it hit me.
Christine Blasey Ford doesn’t support Tara Reade.
Okay, I don’t actually know that’s true. But Christine Blasey Ford wasn’t whisked away from earth in 2018. She’s still out there somewhere reading the news. She knows about Tara Reade and, so far, she hasn’t offered a word of public support about her allegation. That’s true even though Tara Reade made a point of saying she believed Christine Blasey Ford in her interview with Megyn Kelly.
Isn’t it pretty remarkable that Ford has remained silent? Has anyone in the media even tried to ask Blasey Ford if she believes Reade? Did reporters at every news outlet suddenly lose her number after the confirmation? Given the media comparisons between the two women over the past several weeks, it really does seem like an obvious avenue to pursue. So why hasn’t the media pursued it?
Maybe they have but we certainly haven’t heard about it in public. Maybe that’s because either way Ford answers the questions creates a problem for Democrats. If she doesn’t believe Reade, that really would be a blow to #BelieveWomen and the people who rallied to believe Ford. If Ford does believe Reade, that makes it a lot more uncomfortable for Biden supporters and feminists to downplay or ignore Reade’s allegations. I suspect the media aren’t asking Dr. Ford what she thinks because there’s no upside to Democrats in doing so.


hotair--2020-05-14--Trump to Lindsey Graham: Stop running your mouth and call Obama to testify

There ’ s something … familiar about this .
Ah , that ’ s right .
It ’ s an exact replica of what happened during the impeachment saga , when TrumpWorld wanted to fight fire with fire by hauling Hunter Biden — and maybe Joe Biden — before Graham ’ s Judiciary Committee to answer questions about Burisma and the Ukrainian government .
Graham hemmed and hawed and said noncommittal things about looking into it and seeking documents , but his reluctance was obvious and highly irritating to the president and his inner circle , like Don Jr .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ top Trumpers grumbling about how Graham talks a good game but seldom takes the gloves off to help his side .
Now here we are again , with Ukraine a distant memory and “ ObamaGate ” the president ’ s top priority .
When is Lindsey Graham going to take the gloves off and demand that Obama answer tough questions ?
If I were Trump I ’ d be cautious about setting a precedent in which it ’ s fair game for Congress to subpoena ex-presidents and demand that they answer for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it *is* fair game , to be clear ; Obama shouldn ’ t enjoy any sort of lifetime immunity from testifying because of a job he held for eight years .
But knowing how much Democrats hate him and the 50/50 prospects that he ’ ll be a private citizen again next January , Trump might want to carefully consider what sort of new norm he ’ s setting here .
In his defense , Democrats will haul him before the House next year — or try to — if he loses the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now .
So he might as well tighten the screws on O .
And on Graham , by extension .
This was retweeted last night by Don Jr : Graham replied this morning that he ’ ll open an investigation into how the Russiagate probe began and whether a special counsel was truly ever necessary .
He also told reporters that he plans on calling DOJ officials to explain how and why the Mike Flynn case was handled the way it was .
Calling Obama , though ?
Nope : “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time for me to do that .
I don ’ t know if that ’ s even possible .
I have grave concerns about the role of executive privilege and all kinds of issues , ” Graham said in a brief interview .
“ I understand President Trump ’ s frustration , but be careful what you wish for .
Just be careful what you wish for.
” … “ I ’ m very , very sensitive to the separation of powers , executive branch — we do have oversight of it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Graham said .
“ But hauling a former president before an oversight committee , I don ’ t think that ’ s been done before .
And presidentially , I ’ d be careful what I wish for.
” Graham sees the backfire potential here for Trump from a mile away .
“ I am greatly concerned about the precedent that would be set by calling a former president for oversight , ” he added , noting that Obama could always assert executive privilege in refusing to discuss conversations he had with his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t think that ’ s what Graham ’ s really worried about , that Obama would show up and then duck every question that was asked of him .
That would actually be a *great* outcome for the GOP since O ’ s evasiveness would make him look shady .
I think Graham ’ s worried about the same thing he was worried about in not calling Hunter Biden , that there would turn out to be not much “ there ” there after questioning and then he ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deliver the goods for the president .
That was a minor risk with a ne ’ er-do-well oaf like Biden but it ’ s a major risk with a figure like Obama , who might exploit the opportunity to rail against Trump and possibly persuade the public that his administration handled the Flynn matter responsibly .
The guy ’ s not an amateur ; however much one may dislike him , he communicated effectively enough with the public to get elected twice .
Graham surely realizes that O ’ s a more popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predispose swing voters to side with him in an “ Obama vs. GOP ” showdown .
The odds of him being caught in some aha-gotcha lie are lower than him using the spotlight to damage Trump and Senate Republicans .
Graham has a special reason to avoid confrontation with Obama too .
Although he ’ s almost a sure thing to win his Senate race fall , there ’ s enough uncertainty from the pandemic and the economy and enough anxiety about Trump ’ s polling against Biden that election experts are no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” It ’ s now “ likely Republican.
” His opponent , Jaime Harrison , outraised him in the last quarter ; Harrison is African-American , and there ’ s a large African-American minority in South Carolina that may or may not be out in force for Biden this fall .
The spectacle of Graham grilling the first black president on national television will make it that much more likely that black Democrats in SC will show up to beat him in November .
A president who cared more about his party and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and been careful not to place Graham in a political jam publicly where he ’ s forced to choose between antagonizing his state ’ s black voters on the one hand or his state ’ s Trump fans on the other .
McConnell probably barfed when he saw the Trump tweet above , for exactly that reason .
More than anything , Graham may fear that calling Obama to testify would end up supporting the Democratic narrative that Trump is focused on the wrong things amid the coronavirus crisis .
He can get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration alumni like Clapper because the public is largely inured to that sort of hearing , but if he calls Obama it ’ d be a media circus .
And without any doubt , Obama would use the soapbox provided by the hearing to press his party ’ s case that Trump and the GOP are using the Flynn case to distract the public from Trump ’ s terrible mishandling of the COVID-19 epidemic .
Graham knows it too .
He ’ s not afraid of calling Obama because he thinks O will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he shows up .
He ’ s afraid that Obama will accept and engage .
Exit question : Do 23 percent of Republicans really want to nominate someone other than Trump ?
That smells off , but Rasmussen isn ’ t normally known for anti-Trump polling .

There’s something … familiar about this.
Ah, that’s right. It’s an exact replica of what happened during the impeachment saga, when TrumpWorld wanted to fight fire with fire by hauling Hunter Biden — and maybe Joe Biden — before Graham’s Judiciary Committee to answer questions about Burisma and the Ukrainian government. Graham hemmed and hawed and said noncommittal things about looking into it and seeking documents, but his reluctance was obvious and highly irritating to the president and his inner circle, like Don Jr. I remember reports at the time of top Trumpers grumbling about how Graham talks a good game but seldom takes the gloves off to help his side.
Now here we are again, with Ukraine a distant memory and “ObamaGate” the president’s top priority. When is Lindsey Graham going to take the gloves off and demand that Obama answer tough questions?
If I were Trump I’d be cautious about setting a precedent in which it’s fair game for Congress to subpoena ex-presidents and demand that they answer for their administration’s sins. I think it *is* fair game, to be clear; Obama shouldn’t enjoy any sort of lifetime immunity from testifying because of a job he held for eight years. But knowing how much Democrats hate him and the 50/50 prospects that he’ll be a private citizen again next January, Trump might want to carefully consider what sort of new norm he’s setting here.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1260938381254701060
In his defense, Democrats will haul him before the House next year — or try to — if he loses the election no matter what happens with Obama right now. So he might as well tighten the screws on O.
And on Graham, by extension. This was retweeted last night by Don Jr:
Exactly. @LindseyGrahamSC look at what @RichardGrenell is doing and just follow his example. Stop talking. Do something. And @seanhannity how about giving Little Linds some time off so he can actually do his damn job? https://t.co/yyE92q0TS8 — Ned Ryun (@nedryun) May 13, 2020
Graham replied this morning that he’ll open an investigation into how the Russiagate probe began and whether a special counsel was truly ever necessary. He also told reporters that he plans on calling DOJ officials to explain how and why the Mike Flynn case was handled the way it was. Calling Obama, though? Nope:
“I don’t think now’s the time for me to do that. I don’t know if that’s even possible. I have grave concerns about the role of executive privilege and all kinds of issues,” Graham said in a brief interview. “I understand President Trump’s frustration, but be careful what you wish for. Just be careful what you wish for.”… “I’m very, very sensitive to the separation of powers, executive branch — we do have oversight of it as Congress, appropriate oversight,” Graham said. “But hauling a former president before an oversight committee, I don’t think that’s been done before. And presidentially, I’d be careful what I wish for.”
Graham sees the backfire potential here for Trump from a mile away. “I am greatly concerned about the precedent that would be set by calling a former president for oversight,” he added, noting that Obama could always assert executive privilege in refusing to discuss conversations he had with his advisors while he was president. But I don’t think that’s what Graham’s really worried about, that Obama would show up and then duck every question that was asked of him. That would actually be a *great* outcome for the GOP since O’s evasiveness would make him look shady.
I think Graham’s worried about the same thing he was worried about in not calling Hunter Biden, that there would turn out to be not much “there” there after questioning and then he’d be pilloried by TrumpWorld for failing to deliver the goods for the president. That was a minor risk with a ne’er-do-well oaf like Biden but it’s a major risk with a figure like Obama, who might exploit the opportunity to rail against Trump and possibly persuade the public that his administration handled the Flynn matter responsibly. The guy’s not an amateur; however much one may dislike him, he communicated effectively enough with the public to get elected twice. Graham surely realizes that O’s a more popular figure than Trump too, which would predispose swing voters to side with him in an “Obama vs. GOP” showdown. The odds of him being caught in some aha-gotcha lie are lower than him using the spotlight to damage Trump and Senate Republicans.
Graham has a special reason to avoid confrontation with Obama too. Although he’s almost a sure thing to win his Senate race fall, there’s enough uncertainty from the pandemic and the economy and enough anxiety about Trump’s polling against Biden that election experts are no longer listing his seat as “safe.” It’s now “likely Republican.” His opponent, Jaime Harrison, outraised him in the last quarter; Harrison is African-American, and there’s a large African-American minority in South Carolina that may or may not be out in force for Biden this fall. The spectacle of Graham grilling the first black president on national television will make it that much more likely that black Democrats in SC will show up to beat him in November. A president who cared more about his party and its congressional incumbents would have recognized that and been careful not to place Graham in a political jam publicly where he’s forced to choose between antagonizing his state’s black voters on the one hand or his state’s Trump fans on the other. McConnell probably barfed when he saw the Trump tweet above, for exactly that reason.
More than anything, Graham may fear that calling Obama to testify would end up supporting the Democratic narrative that Trump is focused on the wrong things amid the coronavirus crisis. He can get away with calling DOJ officials and Obama administration alumni like Clapper because the public is largely inured to that sort of hearing, but if he calls Obama it’d be a media circus. And without any doubt, Obama would use the soapbox provided by the hearing to press his party’s case that Trump and the GOP are using the Flynn case to distract the public from Trump’s terrible mishandling of the COVID-19 epidemic. Graham knows it too. He’s not afraid of calling Obama because he thinks O will decline his invitation or assert executive privilege if he shows up. He’s afraid that Obama will accept and engage.
Exit question: Do 23 percent of Republicans really want to nominate someone other than Trump? That smells off, but Rasmussen isn’t normally known for anti-Trump polling.


hotair--2020-05-14--Minnesota governor: Let's start reopening on Monday

Interesting timing on this call in more ways than one .
Minnesota governor Tim Walz announced last night that he would allow one of two emergency orders in the COVID-19 pandemic to expire , which will allow most retail businesses to reopen .
Some of the more occupant-density businesses will remain sidelined for now , but the salons and restaurants also now can see some light at the end of the tunnel : The policy changes , delivered in a livestreamed address , means many small businesses and retailers can open their doors to customers Monday , as long as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and customers through social distancing .
Bars , restaurants , barbershops and salons could open as early as June 1 if they meet safe opening plans that will be devised later this month by state health officials .
“ The stay-at-home order is expiring and the dials are turning , but that doesn ’ t mean we are carefree and can return to the way things were , ” Walz said .
“ It means we have to stay safe , take care , care for our own health and care for our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ step in the governor ’ s response to the virus , loosening a stay-at-home order after nearly two months of restrictions meant to slow the spread of the coronavirus .
But it ’ s not a wholesale reopening of the state .
Schools are already closed for the rest of the academic year , and a separate order closing events and businesses where people are in close contact will continue , as will restrictions on other public spaces and large religious services .
Anyone who can work from home must , and gatherings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and synagogues — must not exceed 10 people .
That June 1 target date even includes the world-famous Mall of America , the largest indoor mall in North America and a popular tourist-shopping destination .
Or perhaps better put , parts of what we here call the MegaMall will reopen : So what prompted this decision ?
Have we flattened the curve and seen a 14-day trend of fewer cases ?
Actually , just the opposite : The toll of COVID-19 on Minnesota continued to rise on Thursday , with another 25 deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even as the state prepared for the reopening of more businesses and retail shops next week .
The total COVID-19 deaths in Minnesota is now 663 , according to the Minnesota Department of Health , with another nine deaths being probable but not verified with diagnostic tests .
Total confirmed cases in the state reached 13,435 , with another 523 being reported Thursday .
If so , then this seems to be a curious time to pull back restrictions — if one goes on the basis that the shutdown was intended to last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explicitly rejected that argument , however , reminding WCCO listeners this morning that the point was only to flatten the curve long enough to get adequate health-care resources in place .
At least here in Minnesota , that has been a success : “ The whole purpose of this was just to push this thing out , flatten it and slow down .
You ’ re not going to prevent it , ” Walz said on WCCO radio Thursday morning .
“ I think it ’ s hard for people to wrap their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still going to get this .
The fear was , you saw this in other places , they weren ’ t ready and it overwhelmed the system.
” Hospitals have dramatically increased their capacities over the past two months , though .
As of Thursday , the state reported a supply of 1,443 ventilators in hospitals — with only 529 in use by patients with COVID-19 or other unrelated medical problems .
The state also has a surge supply of 1,401 more ventilators and another 858 on back order for delivery , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s actually … astonishingly refreshing in the midst of this crisis , in which goalpost-moving has become our new national pastime .
Walz wants density restrictions on businesses and plans for social-distancing mitigation , but he also wants to get Minnesota back to work and people back on the job rather than on the dole .
It ’ s his attempt to keep threading the needle and hitting a good middle ground , which thus far has kept grumbling down to an undercurrent rather than a dominant issue the way it has become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new timetable quelled a nascent partisan battle over Walz ’ extension of the emergency order .
Republicans in the legislature took some credit for keeping Walz from engaging in mission creep , and said that they would work with him on rolling out the new COVID-19 normal now : Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka , R-East Gull Lake , expressed support for the governor ’ s announcement , suggesting Walz had listened to GOP lawmakers and other critics pressing him to reopen more businesses , “ We ’ re moving in the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video released during Walz ’ s address .
“ This is really good news .
I ’ m glad that he listened to us and I feel like we led the way .
Now it ’ s up to us , you and me , that we practice safe distancing .
I have every confidence we ’ re going to be able to do it .
Minnesota is back on track.
” One other issue might have prompted the rollback , which was yesterday ’ s decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The partisan bitterness of the 2011 Fleebaggers and recall election has not dissipated at all , and Evers and the GOP-led legislature have been at odds almost since the start of this pandemic .
Evers ’ attempts to bypass the legislature and govern by emergency decree forced the state into an all-or-nothing position , and the court ’ s ruling has created more chaos than would have happened had Evers bothered to work with Republicans .
Legislators here had also become exasperated with Walz ’ go-it-alone instincts , and Walz had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiasco he ’ d much prefer to avoid , if for no other reason than to unfold the reopening as rationally as possible over the next few weeks .
Thus some measure of common sense will return to Minnesota starting on Monday .
Thus far , Minnesotans have been fairly compliant with social-distancing and face-covering recommendations .
There ’ s no reason to think that treating us like adults in the near future will produce any worse results .

Interesting timing on this call in more ways than one. Minnesota governor Tim Walz announced last night that he would allow one of two emergency orders in the COVID-19 pandemic to expire, which will allow most retail businesses to reopen. Some of the more occupant-density businesses will remain sidelined for now, but the salons and restaurants also now can see some light at the end of the tunnel:
The policy changes, delivered in a livestreamed address, means many small businesses and retailers can open their doors to customers Monday, as long as they have a plan to safeguard employees and customers through social distancing. Bars, restaurants, barbershops and salons could open as early as June 1 if they meet safe opening plans that will be devised later this month by state health officials. “The stay-at-home order is expiring and the dials are turning, but that doesn’t mean we are carefree and can return to the way things were,” Walz said. “It means we have to stay safe, take care, care for our own health and care for our neighbor.” It’s a significant step in the governor’s response to the virus, loosening a stay-at-home order after nearly two months of restrictions meant to slow the spread of the coronavirus. But it’s not a wholesale reopening of the state. Schools are already closed for the rest of the academic year, and a separate order closing events and businesses where people are in close contact will continue, as will restrictions on other public spaces and large religious services. Anyone who can work from home must, and gatherings — including those at churches, mosques and synagogues — must not exceed 10 people.
That June 1 target date even includes the world-famous Mall of America, the largest indoor mall in North America and a popular tourist-shopping destination. Or perhaps better put, parts of what we here call the MegaMall will reopen:
Yes, Mall of America is reopening on Mon June 1, but this is important –> "not all retailers will reopen at the same time." Restaurants and rides will be closed til "further guidance from state officials is provided." #coronavirus — Jo Ling Kent (@jolingkent) May 14, 2020
So what prompted this decision? Have we flattened the curve and seen a 14-day trend of fewer cases? Actually, just the opposite:
The toll of COVID-19 on Minnesota continued to rise on Thursday, with another 25 deaths being linked to the infectious disease, even as the state prepared for the reopening of more businesses and retail shops next week. The total COVID-19 deaths in Minnesota is now 663, according to the Minnesota Department of Health, with another nine deaths being probable but not verified with diagnostic tests. Total confirmed cases in the state reached 13,435, with another 523 being reported Thursday.
If so, then this seems to be a curious time to pull back restrictions — if one goes on the basis that the shutdown was intended to last until the virus went away. Walz explicitly rejected that argument, however, reminding WCCO listeners this morning that the point was only to flatten the curve long enough to get adequate health-care resources in place. At least here in Minnesota, that has been a success:
“The whole purpose of this was just to push this thing out, flatten it and slow down. You’re not going to prevent it,” Walz said on WCCO radio Thursday morning. “I think it’s hard for people to wrap their head around [that] folks are still going to get this. The fear was, you saw this in other places, they weren’t ready and it overwhelmed the system.” Hospitals have dramatically increased their capacities over the past two months, though. As of Thursday, the state reported a supply of 1,443 ventilators in hospitals — with only 529 in use by patients with COVID-19 or other unrelated medical problems. The state also has a surge supply of 1,401 more ventilators and another 858 on back order for delivery, for a total of 3,702.
That’s actually … astonishingly refreshing in the midst of this crisis, in which goalpost-moving has become our new national pastime. Walz wants density restrictions on businesses and plans for social-distancing mitigation, but he also wants to get Minnesota back to work and people back on the job rather than on the dole. It’s his attempt to keep threading the needle and hitting a good middle ground, which thus far has kept grumbling down to an undercurrent rather than a dominant issue the way it has become in other states.
His announcement and new timetable quelled a nascent partisan battle over Walz’ extension of the emergency order. Republicans in the legislature took some credit for keeping Walz from engaging in mission creep, and said that they would work with him on rolling out the new COVID-19 normal now:
Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka, R-East Gull Lake, expressed support for the governor’s announcement, suggesting Walz had listened to GOP lawmakers and other critics pressing him to reopen more businesses, “We’re moving in the right direction,” Gazelka said in a video released during Walz’s address. “This is really good news. I’m glad that he listened to us and I feel like we led the way. Now it’s up to us, you and me, that we practice safe distancing. I have every confidence we’re going to be able to do it. Minnesota is back on track.”
One other issue might have prompted the rollback, which was yesterday’s decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court to throw out Tony Evers’ emergency extension. The partisan bitterness of the 2011 Fleebaggers and recall election has not dissipated at all, and Evers and the GOP-led legislature have been at odds almost since the start of this pandemic. Evers’ attempts to bypass the legislature and govern by emergency decree forced the state into an all-or-nothing position, and the court’s ruling has created more chaos than would have happened had Evers bothered to work with Republicans. Legislators here had also become exasperated with Walz’ go-it-alone instincts, and Walz had to see a Wisconsin-style legal battle as a fiasco he’d much prefer to avoid, if for no other reason than to unfold the reopening as rationally as possible over the next few weeks.
Thus some measure of common sense will return to Minnesota starting on Monday. Thus far, Minnesotans have been fairly compliant with social-distancing and face-covering recommendations. There’s no reason to think that treating us like adults in the near future will produce any worse results.


hotair--2020-05-14--The strange story of kidnapped Italian aid worker Silvia Romano

Italy has been through a lot in the past three months but now the country is dealing with a big post-coronavirus news story and people on all sides are angry .
The story involves a 24-year-old woman named Silvia Romano .
Romano was kidnapped back November 2018 while working in Kenya with an aid organization .
Her kidnappers were part of a Somali terrorist group called Al Shabab .
After she was taken , she was marched to Somalia by the group and then moved around several times .
Her whereabouts and condition remained unknown for 18-months until last weekend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by her captors .
There was some early celebration of the news in Italy .
And that ’ s when the story took a couple of sharp turns that many Italians didn ’ t expect and some really didn ’ t like .
Sunday , Romano arrived back in Italy but came off the plane wearing a green hijab .
She had converted to Islam , the religion of her kidnappers , during her captivity .
She had also changed her name from Silvia to Aisha .
Italian news outlets , which said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Aisha , reported this week that Ms. Romano had told prosecutors that she freely converted to Islam during her abduction .
She denied rumors that she had been forced to marry one of her abductors and that she was pregnant , the reports said… Ms. Romano ’ s conversion to Islam — and whether it was voluntary — held sway in the Italian news media for days .
Parallels were drawn to the television series “ Homeland , ” in which Sgt .
Nicholas Brody , a U.S. Marine held captive by Al @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the United States as a possible enemy agent .
“ Converting after spending so many months under the pressure of mercenaries that use Islam as a cover to extort money from a state is a choice that opens a debate , ” the Moroccan author Tahar Ben Jelloun , a Muslim , wrote in an opinion piece in the newspaper La Repubblica on Tuesday .
Romano ’ s conversion has prompted an angry reaction among some .
Police are now guarding the street where she lives in Italy after threats were made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thrown at her apartment .
The issue reached a boiling point yesterday in Italy ’ s parliament when a right-wing politician referred to her as a “ neo-terrorist ” prompting a backlash from other lawmakers : Allesandro Pagano of the far-right anti-immigrant Lega party said Mr Conte and and his Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio were motivated to embrace Ms Romano more than Italy ’ s emergency workers and referred to the former hostage as a “ neo-terrorist ” .
The right-wing politician was shouted down and reprimanded for the comments and has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook , Mr Pagano expressed solidarity with Ms Romano and said he was criticising the Italian government , rather than the kidnapping victim , because it had delivered a propaganda victory to the Somali-based extremists .
And that brings us to the other thing that many Italians are angry about .
There are reports that the government paid a substantial ransom to secure Romano ’ s release .
According to a spokesman for the group , some of that money would be used to fund the group ’ s jihad : Mr. Pagano @ @ @ @ @ @ @ La Repubblica , in which Ali Dehere , identified as a Shabab spokesman , said that a ransom payment would be used for schools , food and medicine , and to buy weapons , “ which we increasingly need for the jihad , our holy war.
” Mr. Dehere did not specify the amount of the ransom that he said had been paid for Ms. Romano ’ s release .
Unsubstantiated news reports used figures as high as 4 million euro , about $ 4.3 million .
To be clear , the Italian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NY Times reports that Italy has a “ purported propensity — which it has consistently denied — to pay ransom for the release of kidnapped Italians , a practice that is common elsewhere in Europe.
” The whole story reminds me a bit of the return of Bowe Berghdal , a deserter who became a Taliban captive for five years .
Berghdal was eventually released as part of a deal which included the release of five Gitmo captives , leading a lot of Americans , including some of those who had served @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal had been worthwhile .

Italy has been through a lot in the past three months but now the country is dealing with a big post-coronavirus news story and people on all sides are angry. The story involves a 24-year-old woman named Silvia Romano. Romano was kidnapped back November 2018 while working in Kenya with an aid organization. Her kidnappers were part of a Somali terrorist group called Al Shabab. After she was taken, she was marched to Somalia by the group and then moved around several times. Her whereabouts and condition remained unknown for 18-months until last weekend when reports indicated she had been released by her captors.
There was some early celebration of the news in Italy. And that’s when the story took a couple of sharp turns that many Italians didn’t expect and some really didn’t like. Sunday, Romano arrived back in Italy but came off the plane wearing a green hijab. She had converted to Islam, the religion of her kidnappers, during her captivity. She had also changed her name from Silvia to Aisha.
Italian news outlets, which said she had changed her first name to Aisha, reported this week that Ms. Romano had told prosecutors that she freely converted to Islam during her abduction. She denied rumors that she had been forced to marry one of her abductors and that she was pregnant, the reports said… Ms. Romano’s conversion to Islam — and whether it was voluntary — held sway in the Italian news media for days. Parallels were drawn to the television series “Homeland,” in which Sgt. Nicholas Brody, a U.S. Marine held captive by Al Qaeda, converts to Islam and returns to the United States as a possible enemy agent. “Converting after spending so many months under the pressure of mercenaries that use Islam as a cover to extort money from a state is a choice that opens a debate,” the Moroccan author Tahar Ben Jelloun, a Muslim, wrote in an opinion piece in the newspaper La Repubblica on Tuesday.
Romano’s conversion has prompted an angry reaction among some. Police are now guarding the street where she lives in Italy after threats were made against her and some glass bottles where thrown at her apartment. The issue reached a boiling point yesterday in Italy’s parliament when a right-wing politician referred to her as a “neo-terrorist” prompting a backlash from other lawmakers:
Allesandro Pagano of the far-right anti-immigrant Lega party said Mr Conte and and his Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio were motivated to embrace Ms Romano more than Italy’s emergency workers and referred to the former hostage as a “neo-terrorist”. The right-wing politician was shouted down and reprimanded for the comments and has subsequently apologised. In a statement on Facebook, Mr Pagano expressed solidarity with Ms Romano and said he was criticising the Italian government, rather than the kidnapping victim, because it had delivered a propaganda victory to the Somali-based extremists.
And that brings us to the other thing that many Italians are angry about. There are reports that the government paid a substantial ransom to secure Romano’s release. According to a spokesman for the group, some of that money would be used to fund the group’s jihad:
Mr. Pagano then cited an article published Tuesday in La Repubblica, in which Ali Dehere, identified as a Shabab spokesman, said that a ransom payment would be used for schools, food and medicine, and to buy weapons, “which we increasingly need for the jihad, our holy war.” Mr. Dehere did not specify the amount of the ransom that he said had been paid for Ms. Romano’s release. Unsubstantiated news reports used figures as high as 4 million euro, about $4.3 million.
To be clear, the Italian government denies paying a ransom but even the NY Times reports that Italy has a “purported propensity — which it has consistently denied — to pay ransom for the release of kidnapped Italians, a practice that is common elsewhere in Europe.”
The whole story reminds me a bit of the return of Bowe Berghdal, a deserter who became a Taliban captive for five years. Berghdal was eventually released as part of a deal which included the release of five Gitmo captives, leading a lot of Americans, including some of those who had served with Berghdal, to question whether the deal had been worthwhile.


hotair--2020-05-14--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Unmasking reveal, stare decisis repeal, stay-at-home cartwheels, religi

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Unmasking reveal, stare decisis repeal, stay-at-home cartwheels, religious exercise ordeal, and more!

The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Duane “ Generalissimo ” Patterson brings us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow ’ s Hugh Hewitt show .
We ’ ll bring you the latest on COVID-19 , as well as discuss the sudden lack of focus on stare decisis when it comes to the federal bench .
Find out why Minnesota might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Great Reopening ( or at least not drag its feet ) , and of course we ’ ll get into all of the aspects of the reveal of unmasking efforts in the last days of the Obama administration .
• Can governors block people from attending religious services , even in a pandemic ?
We will discuss that question with Charles LiMandri , the attorney representing South Bay United Pentecostal Church and Bishop Arthur Hodges III in a federal lawsuit against the state of California .
LiMandri will give us the reason why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and what compelled him to defend the church on behalf of the Thomas More Society .
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016 ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on the week’s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show. We’ll bring you the latest on COVID-19, as well as discuss the sudden lack of focus on stare decisis when it comes to the federal bench. Find out why Minnesota might end up leading the charge into the Great Reopening (or at least not drag its feet), and of course we’ll get into all of the aspects of the reveal of unmasking efforts in the last days of the Obama administration.
Can governors block people from attending religious services, even in a pandemic? We will discuss that question with Charles LiMandri, the attorney representing South Bay United Pentecostal Church and Bishop Arthur Hodges III in a federal lawsuit against the state of California. LiMandri will give us the reason why California has handled this crisis especially poorly, and what compelled him to defend the church on behalf of the Thomas More Society.
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-05-14--Report: Google cut back on diversity programs after lawsuit by James Damore (Update)

NBC News published a report Wednesday in which current and former Google employees claim the company has cut back on diversity initiatives in the wake of a lawsuit by former employee James Damore .
In addition , the employees claim some of the Google staff who managed these programs have been given other duties as the company moves toward a reliance on outside contractors for diversity training .
Since 2018 , internal diversity and inclusion training programs have been scaled back or cut entirely , four Google employees and two people who recently left the company told NBC News in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the team responsible for those programs has been reduced in size , and positions previously held by full-time employees have been outsourced or not refilled after members of the diversity teams left the company .
One well-liked diversity training program at Google called Sojourn , a comprehensive racial justice program created for employees to learn about implicit bias and how to navigate conversations about race and inequality , was cut entirely , according to seven former and current employees .
Sojourn offered its last training to Google workers in 2018 , four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was cut completely… Two other diversity training programs at Google , DEI for Managers , a primer to build skills around navigating issues of race on their teams , and Allyship 101 , a program to learn about different types of oppressed groups and ways of supporting them , have also been cut , three former and current employees confirmed .
According to the people NBC News spoke to , all of this is fallout from the firing of James Damore and his subsequent lawsuit against the company : “ One of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the company doesn ’ t want to be seen as anti-conservative , ” one Google employee familiar with the company ’ s diversity programming said in an interview .
“ It does not want to invite lawsuits or claims by right-wing white employees about Google discriminating against them.
” … In January 2018 , Damore sued Google for discrimination , claiming the company was biased against white men and employees with conservative politics .
Two months after Damore ’ s lawsuit was filed , a former recruiter at YouTube , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claiming he was fired after resisting an internal mandate to only hire diverse –– black , Latino or female –– candidates .
Both Damore ’ s and the recruiter ’ s cases were moved to arbitration .
The arbitration between Google and Damore appears to be reaching a conclusion .
Last week he and others involved in the lawsuit asked that it be dismissed .
Damore ’ s lawyer said the arbitration agreement prevented him from discussing the agreement .
But his lawyer also indicated that she believed the lawsuit had had some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s what the current and former employees are seeing .
The article also points to this 2018 Breitbart report about plans to bring author Robin DiAngelo to Google to discuss “ white fragility.
” For Google ’ s part , it admits to cutting the Sojourn program but claims the problem with it was that it was too focused on specifically American issues of race which allow them to scale the program for a global workforce .
But former employees say the new material doesn ’ t have the same impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NBC News spoke to assume that the material being taught at Google was valuable .
The assumption that everyone should be on board with Robin DiAngelo ( who also spoke at Evergreen State College pre-meltdown ) is one that doesn ’ t get challenged in this piece .
But maybe it ’ s possible that Google implemented some changes because it was clear that their training was taking a pretty far left tack and would invite some legitimate criticism and possibly some additional lawsuits .
In other words , maybe Google learned something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees don ’ t like it .
Update : I can ’ t locate video of Robin DiAngelo ’ s appearance at Google , but I did find this recording from 2017 of Michael Skolnik and Kimberly Papillon giving a talk about “ Implicit Bias and Microaggressions.
” In the intro , Skolnik explains that he is the chairman of the board for the group that produced the Women ’ s March and mentions that three of the former co-chair of the Women ’ s March are part of his organization and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the series.
” Again , maybe recent events ( apart from James Damore ’ s lawsuit ) helped convince Google that it shouldn ’ t invite every left-wing figure into their shop to lecture the employees .

NBC News published a report Wednesday in which current and former Google employees claim the company has cut back on diversity initiatives in the wake of a lawsuit by former employee James Damore. In addition, the employees claim some of the Google staff who managed these programs have been given other duties as the company moves toward a reliance on outside contractors for diversity training.
Since 2018, internal diversity and inclusion training programs have been scaled back or cut entirely, four Google employees and two people who recently left the company told NBC News in interviews. In addition, they said, the team responsible for those programs has been reduced in size, and positions previously held by full-time employees have been outsourced or not refilled after members of the diversity teams left the company. One well-liked diversity training program at Google called Sojourn, a comprehensive racial justice program created for employees to learn about implicit bias and how to navigate conversations about race and inequality, was cut entirely, according to seven former and current employees. Sojourn offered its last training to Google workers in 2018, four current employees said, and by 2019 it was cut completely… Two other diversity training programs at Google, DEI for Managers, a primer to build skills around navigating issues of race on their teams, and Allyship 101, a program to learn about different types of oppressed groups and ways of supporting them, have also been cut, three former and current employees confirmed.
According to the people NBC News spoke to, all of this is fallout from the firing of James Damore and his subsequent lawsuit against the company:
“One of the major motivations for cutting Sojourn is that the company doesn’t want to be seen as anti-conservative,” one Google employee familiar with the company’s diversity programming said in an interview. “It does not want to invite lawsuits or claims by right-wing white employees about Google discriminating against them.”… In January 2018, Damore sued Google for discrimination, claiming the company was biased against white men and employees with conservative politics. Two months after Damore’s lawsuit was filed, a former recruiter at YouTube, which is owned by Google, filed a lawsuit claiming he was fired after resisting an internal mandate to only hire diverse –– black, Latino or female –– candidates. Both Damore’s and the recruiter’s cases were moved to arbitration.
The arbitration between Google and Damore appears to be reaching a conclusion. Last week he and others involved in the lawsuit asked that it be dismissed. Damore’s lawyer said the arbitration agreement prevented him from discussing the agreement. But his lawyer also indicated that she believed the lawsuit had had some impact on the company. So maybe that’s what the current and former employees are seeing.
The article also points to this 2018 Breitbart report about plans to bring author Robin DiAngelo to Google to discuss “white fragility.”
“There was a meme going around that said white fragility shuts down discussions of white fragility,” a person involved with the event said in an interview, referring to a meme that circulated on an internal employee message board. The event wasn’t ultimately shut down, but additional security was provided.
For Google’s part, it admits to cutting the Sojourn program but claims the problem with it was that it was too focused on specifically American issues of race which allow them to scale the program for a global workforce. But former employees say the new material doesn’t have the same impact.
Naturally, all of the employees NBC News spoke to assume that the material being taught at Google was valuable. The assumption that everyone should be on board with Robin DiAngelo (who also spoke at Evergreen State College pre-meltdown) is one that doesn’t get challenged in this piece. But maybe it’s possible that Google implemented some changes because it was clear that their training was taking a pretty far left tack and would invite some legitimate criticism and possibly some additional lawsuits. In other words, maybe Google learned something valuable even if these former and current employees don’t like it.
Update: I can’t locate video of Robin DiAngelo’s appearance at Google, but I did find this recording from 2017 of Michael Skolnik and Kimberly Papillon giving a talk about “Implicit Bias and Microaggressions.” In the intro, Skolnik explains that he is the chairman of the board for the group that produced the Women’s March and mentions that three of the former co-chair of the Women’s March are part of his organization and “have all spoken here at Google as part of the series.” Again, maybe recent events (apart from James Damore’s lawsuit) helped convince Google that it shouldn’t invite every left-wing figure into their shop to lecture the employees.