hotair--2020-04-15--Trump: If the Senate won't convene and vote on my nominees, I'll adjourn Congress and make recess ap

Trump: If the Senate won't convene and vote on my nominees, I'll adjourn Congress and make recess appointments

He understands that he ’ s going nuclear on McConnell , not Pelosi , by suggesting this , right ?
If you ’ re confused by the idea of the president adjourning Congress , well , no one would blame you .
Even Obama didn ’ t propose this when he got swatted down 9-0 by SCOTUS in the famous Noel Canning decision on recess appointments .
Watch the clip , then read on .
He ’ s referring to Article II , Section 3 , which does give the president power to convene or adjourn under certain conditions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union , and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient ; he may , on extraordinary occasions , convene both Houses , or either of them , and in case of disagreement between them , with respect to the time of adjournment , he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper ; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers ; he shall take care that the laws be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the officers of the United States .
Is this an “ extraordinary occasion ” ?
Arguably , sure — global pandemic , uncertainty as to when it ’ ll be safe for Congress to reconvene in the flesh .
SCOTUS might let him slide on that part .
As I read Section 3 , though , McConnell and the Senate would have to move to adjourn on their own initiative before Trump could get involved in the process and force an adjournment .
The president plays a role only if the House and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t agree on the timing .
( Article I , Section 5 says that “ Neither House , during the session of Congress , shall , without the consent of the other , adjourn for more than three days… ” ) He gets to settle the timing dispute between them .
But first there needs to be a dispute .
Right now the Senate is holding daily pro forma sessions ; those sessions count to block the president from making recess appointments .
That was the holding in Noel Canning : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ session when it says it is , provided that , under its own rules , it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.
” So long as McConnell doesn ’ t want to adjourn , Trump has no power to force him to .
That 9-0 ruling was one of the better decisions of the Obama era in how it preserved the legislature ’ s authority over its own process .
Today Trump called pro forma sessions a “ scam ” because they ’ re now a thorn in his side .
Imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president could force Congress to adjourn at will .
He ’ d be able to fill vacancies with recess appointments anytime he liked , provided , I guess , that he could convince the courts that it was an “ extraordinary occasion.
” Allowing a self-styled strongman like Trump to adjourn Congress “ to such time as he shall think proper ” would be especially dangerous in a national crisis given his pretensions to “ total ” authority and dubious emergency powers .
The Senate could willingly hand him that authority by moving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House over the duration of the adjournment , but Trump can ’ t seize it .
And if you don ’ t like that , imagine President Joe Biden trying it and see how much you like it then .
Jonathan Turley is not a fan of this idea : Neither is Trump nemesis Justin Amash , who reads the Adjournment Clause the same way I do : Ramesh Ponnuru asks a good question .
Did Trump blindside McConnell by floating this idea publicly ?
Conceivably he asked McConnell to adjourn , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell said no .
Trump may have then decided to play hardball by launching into this spiel at today ’ s briefing .
( Which , as a reminder , is supposed to be about the coronavirus epidemic . )
McConnell normally complies with Trump ’ s wishes but he ’ d have reason not to go along this time : If McConnell hands Trump a blank check on recess appointments , he ’ s going to end up with Roy Moore on a federal circuit court somewhere .
Even if he wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minor problem there : McConnell would need Democratic help to move to adjourn .
Think the Dems are going to do that and give Trump carte blanche on recess appointments ?
Exit question : If Trump wants to speed things up on the Senate rubber-stamping his judges , why doesn ’ t he call on them publicly to approve remote voting by senators ?
That would be politically popular and it would move the judicial conveyor belt along .

He understands that he’s going nuclear on McConnell, not Pelosi, by suggesting this, right?
If you’re confused by the idea of the president adjourning Congress, well, no one would blame you. Even Obama didn’t propose this when he got swatted down 9-0 by SCOTUS in the famous Noel Canning decision on recess appointments.
Watch the clip, then read on.
President Trump: "The Senate should either fulfill its duty and vote on my nominees or it should formally adjourn so that I can make recess appointments… if the House will not agree to that adjournment I will exercise my constitutional authority to adjourn both chambers…" pic.twitter.com/jR7yd8xEnG — CSPAN (@cspan) April 15, 2020
He’s referring to Article II, Section 3, which does give the president power to convene or adjourn under certain conditions, on “extraordinary occasions.”
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
Is this an “extraordinary occasion”? Arguably, sure — global pandemic, uncertainty as to when it’ll be safe for Congress to reconvene in the flesh. SCOTUS might let him slide on that part. As I read Section 3, though, McConnell and the Senate would have to move to adjourn on their own initiative before Trump could get involved in the process and force an adjournment. The president plays a role only if the House and Senate both want to adjourn but can’t agree on the timing. (Article I, Section 5 says that “Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days…”) He gets to settle the timing dispute between them.
But first there needs to be a dispute. Right now the Senate is holding daily pro forma sessions; those sessions count to block the president from making recess appointments. That was the holding in Noel Canning: “[T]he Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.” So long as McConnell doesn’t want to adjourn, Trump has no power to force him to. That 9-0 ruling was one of the better decisions of the Obama era in how it preserved the legislature’s authority over its own process. Today Trump called pro forma sessions a “scam” because they’re now a thorn in his side.
Imagine how absurd it would be if the president could force Congress to adjourn at will. He’d be able to fill vacancies with recess appointments anytime he liked, provided, I guess, that he could convince the courts that it was an “extraordinary occasion.” Allowing a self-styled strongman like Trump to adjourn Congress “to such time as he shall think proper” would be especially dangerous in a national crisis given his pretensions to “total” authority and dubious emergency powers. The Senate could willingly hand him that authority by moving to adjourn and then squabbling with the House over the duration of the adjournment, but Trump can’t seize it. And if you don’t like that, imagine President Joe Biden trying it and see how much you like it then.
Jonathan Turley is not a fan of this idea:
The President just said that he may unilaterally adjourn Congress. This seems to be a reference to Article II, Section 3, which gives a president in “extraordinary occasions” to convene or adjourn the Houses. This power has never been used and should not be used now . . . — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) April 15, 2020
Neither is Trump nemesis Justin Amash, who reads the Adjournment Clause the same way I do:
Without one chamber participating in this improper scheme, this action would be unconstitutional. The president has no general, unilateral power to adjourn Congress. He may do so only in the limited “Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment.” https://t.co/9LkZ7309Ca — Justin Amash (@justinamash) April 15, 2020
Ramesh Ponnuru asks a good question. Did Trump blindside McConnell by floating this idea publicly? Conceivably he asked McConnell to adjourn, which would potentially trigger presidential involvement, and McConnell said no. Trump may have then decided to play hardball by launching into this spiel at today’s briefing. (Which, as a reminder, is supposed to be about the coronavirus epidemic.) McConnell normally complies with Trump’s wishes but he’d have reason not to go along this time:
It might enable the appointment of some nominees McConnell greatly favors, such as Judge Walker. But it might also enable the appointment of people he silently opposes and can use lack of majority support to keep out of government. — Ramesh Ponnuru (@RameshPonnuru) April 15, 2020
If McConnell hands Trump a blank check on recess appointments, he’s going to end up with Roy Moore on a federal circuit court somewhere.
Even if he wanted to adjourn, there’s a minor problem there:
The Senate could always try to change that. But a motion to adjourn would be subject to cloture—meaning it would need at least 7 D votes. The majority could get *rid* of cloture by a simple majority, but I have to think this would be a bridge too far for at least 4 R senators. — Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) April 15, 2020
McConnell would need Democratic help to move to adjourn. Think the Dems are going to do that and give Trump carte blanche on recess appointments?
Exit question: If Trump wants to speed things up on the Senate rubber-stamping his judges, why doesn’t he call on them publicly to approve remote voting by senators? That would be politically popular and it would move the judicial conveyor belt along.


hotair--2020-04-15--Will schools reopen in the fall and if so what will students attend?

Major cities like Los Angeles and New York , plus about half the states have already announced that schools will not be reopening this spring .
But as pressure builds to reopen the economy , there are still some doubts about whether or not schools will be able to open up in the fall for the 2020-2021 school year : President Trump has said repeatedly he wants to open the country for business as soon as possible , often mentioning May 1 as a goal .
Yet epidemiologists are warning that the coronavirus , which has already killed more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be a threat to public health for many months .
Fauci , who is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and who has become the medical community ’ s leading spokesman on the pandemic , has suggested schools may be able to open in the fall if current efforts to “ flatten the curve ” are successful .
He was nothing if not indefinite .
“ You know , it is unpredictable , but you can get a feel for it if we start talking about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Fauci said at a White House briefing .
“ How we respond and what kind of a rebound we see or don ’ t see , I think is going to have a lot of influence probably more immediately on things like summer camps than it does in the fall.
” Fauci may be right , but there ’ s also a possibility that we could pass the current infection peaks in the next month or so and then find ourselves facing a new surge in infections once the economy starts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are planning for the worst case so they don ’ t get caught flat-footed again like they did this spring .
Today the College Board , which administers the SAT , announced that it had contingency plans in place on the chance that schools are not able to reopen in the fall .
In Indiana , schools are preparing for the same possibility : Schools in Washington state hope to be open in the fall but are also thinking about how to be ready if they are not : California ’ s Governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall with some attempts made to allow for more social distancing .
But not everyone is sure that will work : That could mean having students split the school day into morning and afternoon shifts , he said , or staggering lunch , gym and recess to limit the size of gatherings .
Newsom said “ we need to get our kids back to school ; I need to get my kids back to school ” but that the state would be “ very , very vigilant ” in how they do so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Association of California School Administrators , said that while socially distanced schools would be hard to accommodate for any district , some lack the facility space to even give it a fair shot .
“ On the bright side , folks are encouraged that we ’ re at least talking about having school in person in the fall .
That hasn ’ t been a given , ” Zazueta said .
“ We do appreciate that the governor is talking about this early but folks are going to be reluctant to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still some density .
With just the nature of schools , no matter what we put in place , we ’ re talking about kids here .
The notion of physically distancing is not going to go well.
” Government schools are a unique problem because until they are open , many parents can ’ t leave home to go to work .
So until schools open for younger kids , the economy is really still on hold .
On the other hand , students are legally required to show up to K-12 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone is obligated to send their kids .
The battle between those parents who are eager to get back to work and those who are worried about the risk of kids bringing home the virus ( for instance , people who live with an elderly parent at home ) is going to be intense .
Colleges are a different situation because students are adults and no one is required to go .
The NY Times published a story today suggesting colleges are very worried that a lot of students may not return in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practicality or finances : For years , Claire McCarville dreamed of going to college in New York or Los Angeles , and was thrilled last month to get accepted to selective schools in both places .
But earlier this month , she sent a $ 300 deposit to Arizona State University , a 15-minute drive from her home in Phoenix .
“ It made more sense , ” she said , “ in light of the virus.
” … Some institutions are projecting $ 100 million losses for the spring , and many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial hit in the fall , when some are planning for the possibility of having to continue remote classes .
Administrators anticipate that students grappling with the financial and psychological impacts of the virus could choose to stay closer to home , go to less expensive schools , take a year off or not go to college at all .
A higher education trade group has predicted a 15 percent drop in enrollment nationwide , amounting to a $ 23 billion revenue loss… Small institutions like Hampshire College in Amherst , Mass.
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big ones .
Hampshire ’ s president , Ed Wingenbach , has put together a working group that is considering shorter units of study that would allow students to cycle in and out of remote learning if the virus comes and goes .
“ If we ’ re looking at remote learning in the fall , ” he said , “ I think it ’ s more likely students will take a gap year or semester , and that will have a different impact on revenue.
” To sum all of this up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopeful optimism that schools will be reopening in the fall but beneath that there ’ s also some awareness that the situation could change and distance learning may need to continue for some part of the fall semester .
All of that will be dependent on how the country gets through the first peaks of the virus and whether or not we ’ re facing a second wave this summer .

Major cities like Los Angeles and New York, plus about half the states have already announced that schools will not be reopening this spring. But as pressure builds to reopen the economy, there are still some doubts about whether or not schools will be able to open up in the fall for the 2020-2021 school year:
President Trump has said repeatedly he wants to open the country for business as soon as possible, often mentioning May 1 as a goal. Yet epidemiologists are warning that the coronavirus, which has already killed more than 22,000 people in the United States, will be a threat to public health for many months. Fauci, who is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and who has become the medical community’s leading spokesman on the pandemic, has suggested schools may be able to open in the fall if current efforts to “flatten the curve” are successful. He was nothing if not indefinite. “You know, it is unpredictable, but you can get a feel for it if we start talking about the things where the curve goes down,” Fauci said at a White House briefing. “How we respond and what kind of a rebound we see or don’t see, I think is going to have a lot of influence probably more immediately on things like summer camps than it does in the fall.”
Fauci may be right, but there’s also a possibility that we could pass the current infection peaks in the next month or so and then find ourselves facing a new surge in infections once the economy starts to open up. Some schools and institutions are planning for the worst case so they don’t get caught flat-footed again like they did this spring. Today the College Board, which administers the SAT, announced that it had contingency plans in place on the chance that schools are not able to reopen in the fall.
“We know students and educators are worried about how the coronavirus may disrupt the college admissions process, and we want to do all we can to help alleviate that anxiety during this very demanding time,” College Board CEO David Coleman said during a press call Wednesday. “In the unfortunate and unlikely possibility that schools do not open this fall, the College Board will be ready to provide a digital SAT at home.”
In Indiana, schools are preparing for the same possibility:
A growing number of Indiana educators are beginning to prepare for remote instruction to go into the next academic year. Schools that were caught off guard and initially focused on triaging the immediate needs posed by building closures are now recognizing that they could be shut down indefinitely. As a result, districts are making massive investments in technology with the aim of ensuring all students have computers or tablets by the fall. And community leaders are raising funds to train teachers in a bid to improve the quality of the instruction that happens online.
Schools in Washington state hope to be open in the fall but are also thinking about how to be ready if they are not:
Although school is expected to open this fall, [schools chief Chris] Reykdal, standing next to Inslee during the news conference, urged educators to prepare for the possibility that schools could remain closed beyond this school year. “We know we have to be significantly better at this distance model in case we find ourselves in that reality.”
California’s Governor is talking about opening the schools next fall with some attempts made to allow for more social distancing. But not everyone is sure that will work:
That could mean having students split the school day into morning and afternoon shifts, he said, or staggering lunch, gym and recess to limit the size of gatherings. Newsom said “we need to get our kids back to school; I need to get my kids back to school” but that the state would be “very, very vigilant” in how they do so, including deep cleanings… Edgar Zazueta, with the Association of California School Administrators, said that while socially distanced schools would be hard to accommodate for any district, some lack the facility space to even give it a fair shot. “On the bright side, folks are encouraged that we’re at least talking about having school in person in the fall. That hasn’t been a given,” Zazueta said. “We do appreciate that the governor is talking about this early but folks are going to be reluctant to go into places where there’s still some density. With just the nature of schools, no matter what we put in place, we’re talking about kids here. The notion of physically distancing is not going to go well.”
Government schools are a unique problem because until they are open, many parents can’t leave home to go to work. So until schools open for younger kids, the economy is really still on hold. On the other hand, students are legally required to show up to K-12 schools. So once they reopen, everyone is obligated to send their kids. The battle between those parents who are eager to get back to work and those who are worried about the risk of kids bringing home the virus (for instance, people who live with an elderly parent at home) is going to be intense.
Colleges are a different situation because students are adults and no one is required to go. The NY Times published a story today suggesting colleges are very worried that a lot of students may not return in the fall, either for reasons of practicality or finances:
For years, Claire McCarville dreamed of going to college in New York or Los Angeles, and was thrilled last month to get accepted to selective schools in both places. But earlier this month, she sent a $300 deposit to Arizona State University, a 15-minute drive from her home in Phoenix. “It made more sense,” she said, “in light of the virus.”… Some institutions are projecting $100 million losses for the spring, and many are now bracing for an even bigger financial hit in the fall, when some are planning for the possibility of having to continue remote classes. Administrators anticipate that students grappling with the financial and psychological impacts of the virus could choose to stay closer to home, go to less expensive schools, take a year off or not go to college at all. A higher education trade group has predicted a 15 percent drop in enrollment nationwide, amounting to a $23 billion revenue loss… Small institutions like Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., are more vulnerable to financial setbacks than big ones. Hampshire’s president, Ed Wingenbach, has put together a working group that is considering shorter units of study that would allow students to cycle in and out of remote learning if the virus comes and goes. “If we’re looking at remote learning in the fall,” he said, “I think it’s more likely students will take a gap year or semester, and that will have a different impact on revenue.”
To sum all of this up, there’s a lot of hopeful optimism that schools will be reopening in the fall but beneath that there’s also some awareness that the situation could change and distance learning may need to continue for some part of the fall semester. All of that will be dependent on how the country gets through the first peaks of the virus and whether or not we’re facing a second wave this summer.


hotair--2020-04-15--Birx: How did China and the WHO not realize immediately that the virus was spreading between humans?

Her point is simple .
Given how quickly we ’ ve seen the virus spread here in the U.S. with our own eyes , it should have been apparent immediately to health authorities in China that it was being passed between humans .
And no doubt it was apparent .
The Chinese Communist Party has an excuse for not reporting it , though : It ’ s a sinister totalitarian outfit whose first impulse in a crisis is to protect its own prestige by covering up failures .
The group ’ s director of health emergencies claims they actually did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WHO alerted the world to the new disease on January 5 , allowing health systems around the world , including the US , to begin activating their incident management systems that week .
“ In the initial reports , in which there were no mention of human to human transmission , was a cluster of atypical pneumonia or pneumonia of unknown origin , ” he said .
Ryan argued that it was “ remarkable ” that a cluster of cases was detected in Wuhan , China , because there are “ millions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world ” each year and “ sometimes it ’ s very difficult to pick out a signal of a cluster of cases ” in the middle of flu season .
Weeks later the group was still lavishing praise on China for its eventual , far too late lockdown of Wuhan .
Am I mistaken or have they still not harshly scolded the Chinese government to this day for its ruinous early dissembling about the outbreak ?
Anyway , the fight over funding is destined to become a quasi-partisan battle .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but I think the deeper divide is between Democrat-aligned internationalists… …and Republican-aligned China hawks , especially nationalists .
Trump ’ s impulse to defund the WHO is perfectly valid but I think he may end up backing off .
For one thing , the bad press has already begun about him depriving the WHO of money needed to fight diseases like polio , conduct vaccination programs , and improve nutrition abroad .
Some Republicans aren ’ t thrilled either ( albeit anonymously ) because they think it ’ s poor strategy , knowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to influence a group .
“ We need value on our investment , ” said a Republican aide to CNN .
“ If a partner is not performing in the way it is intended to perform , we need change .
From an oversight perspective , this is about performance and delivery on results.
” Trump ’ s own CDC chief sounded conspicuously reluctant to criticize the WHO in interviews this morning , possibly fearing that a full fracture of the relationship will deprive the U.S. of data it needs for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s even a nationalist critique to be had here .
Namely , that by squabbling with the WHO , Trump is distracting the public from China ’ s misdeeds .
Noah Rothman : This is a unique opportunity to impose costs on Beijing for its reckless actions and totalitarian governance .
Rarely does a political narrative have such an unambiguous heavy , which is why it ’ s so bizarre to see the president not only take his eye off the ball but engage in misdirection .
By shifting focus onto the WHO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which are already prone to spineless equivocation , to protest the martyrdom of an international institution that does serve a vital purpose amid a global pandemic .
By failing to make a distinction between the WHO ’ s medical mission and its political leadership , Trump has muddied the case against the institution and thrown China ’ s reflexive defenders a lifeline .
By threatening the WHO ’ s funding—which is appropriated by Congress and disbursed primarily through grants—he ’ s plunged the nation into a largely superficial debate over consequences that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by withdrawing American support for this organization , even just rhetorically , he ’ s only likely strengthened its reliance on revisionist powers like China .
*Is* this a “ unique opportunity to impose costs on Beijing , ” though ?
My assumption is that Trump picked a fight with the WHO in large part because he ’ s decided he ’ s in no position to pick one with China .
The Times reported a few days ago that Trump ’ s economic advisors pushed back on aides who wanted to blame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ worried a tough approach toward China could scuttle a trade deal that was a pillar of Mr. Trump ’ s re-election campaign.
” And that ’ s not all .
“ Mr .
Trump and other senior officials were wary of further upsetting Beijing , ” the Times continued .
“ Besides the concerns about the impact on the trade deal , they knew that an escalating confrontation was risky because the United States relies heavily on China for pharmaceuticals and the kinds of protective equipment most needed to combat the coronavirus.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president started using the phrase “ Chinese virus ” to antagonize them , his public pronouncements about China ’ s response have sounded a lot like , well , the WHO ’ s : I think he ’ s looking to whack the WHO because he ’ s concluded it ’ s too risky to whack Beijing .
Here ’ s Birx on “ The View ” this morning wondering how the WHO missed an epidemic exploding right before its very eyes .

Her point is simple. Given how quickly we’ve seen the virus spread here in the U.S. with our own eyes, it should have been apparent immediately to health authorities in China that it was being passed between humans.
And no doubt it was apparent. The Chinese Communist Party has an excuse for not reporting it, though: It’s a sinister totalitarian outfit whose first impulse in a crisis is to protect its own prestige by covering up failures.
What’s the WHO’s excuse?
Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China🇨🇳. pic.twitter.com/Fnl5P877VG — World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) January 14, 2020
The group’s director of health emergencies claims they actually did a pretty fantastic job:
Ryan said WHO alerted the world to the new disease on January 5, allowing health systems around the world, including the US, to begin activating their incident management systems that week. “In the initial reports, in which there were no mention of human to human transmission, was a cluster of atypical pneumonia or pneumonia of unknown origin,” he said. Ryan argued that it was “remarkable” that a cluster of cases was detected in Wuhan, China, because there are “millions and millions of cases of atypical pneumonia around the world” each year and “sometimes it’s very difficult to pick out a signal of a cluster of cases” in the middle of flu season.
Weeks later the group was still lavishing praise on China for its eventual, far too late lockdown of Wuhan. Am I mistaken or have they still not harshly scolded the Chinese government to this day for its ruinous early dissembling about the outbreak?
Anyway, the fight over funding is destined to become a quasi-partisan battle. It’ll split largely along partisan lines, but I think the deeper divide is between Democrat-aligned internationalists…
NEW: Former President Carter on WHO funding: “I am distressed by the decision to withhold critically needed US funding for the WHO, especially during an international pandemic. WHO is the only international organization capable of leading the effort to control this virus.” — NBC News (@NBCNews) April 15, 2020
Halting funding for the World Health Organization during a world health crisis is as dangerous as it sounds. Their work is slowing the spread of COVID-19 and if that work is stopped no other organization can replace them. The world needs @WHO now more than ever. — Bill Gates (@BillGates) April 15, 2020
…and Republican-aligned China hawks, especially nationalists. Trump’s impulse to defund the WHO is perfectly valid but I think he may end up backing off. For one thing, the bad press has already begun about him depriving the WHO of money needed to fight diseases like polio, conduct vaccination programs, and improve nutrition abroad. Some Republicans aren’t thrilled either (albeit anonymously) because they think it’s poor strategy, knowing that cutting off funding is a bad way to influence a group. “We need value on our investment,” said a Republican aide to CNN. “If a partner is not performing in the way it is intended to perform, we need change. From an oversight perspective, this is about performance and delivery on results.” Trump’s own CDC chief sounded conspicuously reluctant to criticize the WHO in interviews this morning, possibly fearing that a full fracture of the relationship will deprive the U.S. of data it needs for a more effective response.
Potentially there’s even a nationalist critique to be had here. Namely, that by squabbling with the WHO, Trump is distracting the public from China’s misdeeds. Noah Rothman:
This is a unique opportunity to impose costs on Beijing for its reckless actions and totalitarian governance. Rarely does a political narrative have such an unambiguous heavy, which is why it’s so bizarre to see the president not only take his eye off the ball but engage in misdirection. By shifting focus onto the WHO, the president has allowed European governments, which are already prone to spineless equivocation, to protest the martyrdom of an international institution that does serve a vital purpose amid a global pandemic. By failing to make a distinction between the WHO’s medical mission and its political leadership, Trump has muddied the case against the institution and thrown China’s reflexive defenders a lifeline. By threatening the WHO’s funding—which is appropriated by Congress and disbursed primarily through grants—he’s plunged the nation into a largely superficial debate over consequences that are unlikely to fully materialize. And by withdrawing American support for this organization, even just rhetorically, he’s only likely strengthened its reliance on revisionist powers like China.
*Is* this a “unique opportunity to impose costs on Beijing,” though? My assumption is that Trump picked a fight with the WHO in large part because he’s decided he’s in no position to pick one with China. The Times reported a few days ago that Trump’s economic advisors pushed back on aides who wanted to blame China publicly for the pandemic because they “worried a tough approach toward China could scuttle a trade deal that was a pillar of Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign.” And that’s not all. “Mr. Trump and other senior officials were wary of further upsetting Beijing,” the Times continued. “Besides the concerns about the impact on the trade deal, they knew that an escalating confrontation was risky because the United States relies heavily on China for pharmaceuticals and the kinds of protective equipment most needed to combat the coronavirus.”
Apart from a brief stretch when the president started using the phrase “Chinese virus” to antagonize them, his public pronouncements about China’s response have sounded a lot like, well, the WHO’s:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1220818115354923009
I think he’s looking to whack the WHO because he’s concluded it’s too risky to whack Beijing. Here’s Birx on “The View” this morning wondering how the WHO missed an epidemic exploding right before its very eyes.


hotair--2020-04-15--Even more on the NY Times' hypocrisy over Biden, Kavanaugh allegations

I continue to be somewhat stunned by the NY Times ’ glaring hypocrisy over the sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden .
Today , National Review published a piece titled “ The New York Times Knows Nobody Believes It about Biden , Kavanaugh , and Sexual Assault ” which highlights some additional reasons everyone should be upset ( if not quite surprised ) by the Times ’ behavior .
Author Dan McLaughlin points out that it wasn ’ t just the news division of the Times that pushed the allegations against Kavanaugh to the forefront , it was also the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are some highlights from the Times editorial on Sep. 17 : As in the case of so many he-said/she-said scenarios , there ’ s much we don ’ t know and probably never will with certainty .
But there are two things we do know .
First , there is no upside for women who come forward with stories of sexual harassment or assault , especially when the accused is a famous or powerful man .
It doesn ’ t matter how credible the story is .
Simply by telling it , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the press and suffer far worse on social media , if not in real life… Judge Kavanaugh ’ s defenders have already launched a fusillade of victim-blaming counterattacks , from the predictable to the preposterous : She ’ s making it up .
( If so , she doesn ’ t fit the profile of a false accuser . )
… The bottom line is that Brett Kavanaugh is up for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land , and there is now a credible accusation of sexual assault against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is up for the biggest job in the world and there is now a credible accusation of sexual assault against him .
Moving on , here ’ s a bit from the Times ’ editorial on Sep. 19 : What matters is that Dr. Blasey has made a serious , specific and credible allegation .
Sure , Democrats may want to investigate that claim fully .
But so should anyone concerned about protecting the Supreme Court ’ s integrity , not to mention the reputations of both Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey… Certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preventing the committee from weighing allegations of attempted rape against a nominee to a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land .
Besides , since Judge Kavanaugh has flatly denied the accusation , his honesty now — not as a teenager — is at issue .
Yes , and Joe Biden ’ s campaign has flatly denied the accusation against him , presumably at his direction .
So his honestly now is at issue .
And finally , here ’ s an excerpt from the Times ’ editorial on Sep. 27 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wasn ’ t Believable .
And why Christine Blasey Ford was.
” Dr. Blasey bolstered her credibility not only by describing in harrowing detail what she did remember , but by being honest about what she didn ’ t — like the exact date of the gathering , or the address of the house where it occurred .
As she pointed out , the precise details of a trauma get burned into the brain and stay there long after less relevant details fade away .
She was also honest about her ambivalence in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she told the senators in her opening remarks .
And then there ’ s the fact that she gains nothing by coming forward .
She is in hiding now with her family in the face of death threats .
For the Times , even the things Dr. Ford couldn ’ t remember further proved she was telling the truth .
As for Dr. Ford having nothing to gain in coming forward , Ford ’ s attorney Deborah Katz later told a feminist legal theory conference , “ When he takes a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will know who he is , we know his character , and we know what motivates him , and that is important ; it is important that we know , and that is part of what motivated Christine.
” Having reviewed how the Times treated Dr. Ford and how it treated Brett Kavanaugh , now have another look at Baquet ’ s incredibly lame excuse for why the paper needed 19 days to cover the Tara Reade allegation : I ’ ve been looking at The Times ’ s coverage of Justice Brett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly on the Julie Swetnick allegations .
She was the one who was represented by Michael Avenatti and who suggested that Kavanaugh had been involved in frat house rapes , and then appeared to walk back elements of her allegations .
The Times wrote that story the same day she made the allegation , noting that “ none of Ms. Swetnick ’ s claims could be independently corroborated.
” Kavanaugh was already in a public forum in a large way .
Kavanaugh ’ s status as a Supreme Court justice was in question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And when I say in a public way , I don ’ t mean in the public way of Tara Reade ’ s .
If you ask the average person in America , they didn ’ t know about the Tara Reade case .
So I thought in that case , if The New York Times was going to introduce this to readers , we needed to introduce it with some reporting and perspective .
Kavanaugh was in a very different situation .
It was a live , ongoing story that had become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was just a different news judgment moment .
This excuse is garbage for a number of reasons , starting with the fact that Biden is obviously the public figure in the Biden-Reade story .
He is far better known than Judge Kavanaugh was at the time of his confirmation hearing .
And it was a big story in no small part because the Times gave it a full court press with both news articles and editorials .
So where is the equivalent treatment for Biden and Tara Reade ?
Where is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific and credible allegation ?
Where is the statement that she gains nothing by coming forward ?
Where is the statement from the paper suggesting Biden ’ s election to the highest office in the land should be considered in light of this allegation ?
Where is the denunciation of suggestions Reade might be making this up ?
Where is the paper ’ s call for everyone who cares about the integrity of the White House to join in taking this seriously ?
Where is the statement that Biden ’ s denial puts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short , where is the treatment the Times gave Christine Blasey Ford ?
It ’ s not here obviously , and given the 19 days it took the Times ’ news division to even mention the allegation in print and the spin from some of its own columnists , it ’ s probably not coming anytime soon .

I continue to be somewhat stunned by the NY Times’ glaring hypocrisy over the sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden. Today, National Review published a piece titled “The New York Times Knows Nobody Believes It about Biden, Kavanaugh, and Sexual Assault” which highlights some additional reasons everyone should be upset (if not quite surprised) by the Times’ behavior. Author Dan McLaughlin points out that it wasn’t just the news division of the Times that pushed the allegations against Kavanaugh to the forefront, it was also the paper’s editorial page:
Here are some highlights from the Times editorial on Sep. 17:
As in the case of so many he-said/she-said scenarios, there’s much we don’t know and probably never will with certainty. But there are two things we do know. First, there is no upside for women who come forward with stories of sexual harassment or assault, especially when the accused is a famous or powerful man. It doesn’t matter how credible the story is. Simply by telling it, a woman can expect to be pilloried in the press and suffer far worse on social media, if not in real life… Judge Kavanaugh’s defenders have already launched a fusillade of victim-blaming counterattacks, from the predictable to the preposterous: She’s making it up. (If so, she doesn’t fit the profile of a false accuser.)… The bottom line is that Brett Kavanaugh is up for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, and there is now a credible accusation of sexual assault against him.
Yes, and Joe Biden is up for the biggest job in the world and there is now a credible accusation of sexual assault against him. Moving on, here’s a bit from the Times’ editorial on Sep. 19:
What matters is that Dr. Blasey has made a serious, specific and credible allegation. Sure, Democrats may want to investigate that claim fully. But so should anyone concerned about protecting the Supreme Court’s integrity, not to mention the reputations of both Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey… Certainly there’s no statute of limitations preventing the committee from weighing allegations of attempted rape against a nominee to a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land. Besides, since Judge Kavanaugh has flatly denied the accusation, his honesty now — not as a teenager — is at issue.
Yes, and Joe Biden’s campaign has flatly denied the accusation against him, presumably at his direction. So his honestly now is at issue. And finally, here’s an excerpt from the Times’ editorial on Sep. 27 which was titled “Why Brett Kavanaugh Wasn’t Believable. And why Christine Blasey Ford was.”
Dr. Blasey bolstered her credibility not only by describing in harrowing detail what she did remember, but by being honest about what she didn’t — like the exact date of the gathering, or the address of the house where it occurred. As she pointed out, the precise details of a trauma get burned into the brain and stay there long after less relevant details fade away. She was also honest about her ambivalence in coming forward. “I am terrified,” she told the senators in her opening remarks. And then there’s the fact that she gains nothing by coming forward. She is in hiding now with her family in the face of death threats.
For the Times, even the things Dr. Ford couldn’t remember further proved she was telling the truth. As for Dr. Ford having nothing to gain in coming forward, Ford’s attorney Deborah Katz later told a feminist legal theory conference, “When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”
Having reviewed how the Times treated Dr. Ford and how it treated Brett Kavanaugh, now have another look at Baquet’s incredibly lame excuse for why the paper needed 19 days to cover the Tara Reade allegation:
I’ve been looking at The Times’s coverage of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. I want to focus particularly on the Julie Swetnick allegations. She was the one who was represented by Michael Avenatti and who suggested that Kavanaugh had been involved in frat house rapes, and then appeared to walk back elements of her allegations. The Times wrote that story the same day she made the allegation, noting that “none of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated.” Why was Kavanaugh treated differently? Kavanaugh was already in a public forum in a large way. Kavanaugh’s status as a Supreme Court justice was in question because of a very serious allegation. And when I say in a public way, I don’t mean in the public way of Tara Reade’s. If you ask the average person in America, they didn’t know about the Tara Reade case. So I thought in that case, if The New York Times was going to introduce this to readers, we needed to introduce it with some reporting and perspective. Kavanaugh was in a very different situation. It was a live, ongoing story that had become the biggest political story in the country. It was just a different news judgment moment.
This excuse is garbage for a number of reasons, starting with the fact that Biden is obviously the public figure in the Biden-Reade story. He is far better known than Judge Kavanaugh was at the time of his confirmation hearing. And it was a big story in no small part because the Times gave it a full court press with both news articles and editorials.
So where is the equivalent treatment for Biden and Tara Reade? Where is the editorial stating she has made a specific and credible allegation? Where is the statement that she gains nothing by coming forward? Where is the statement from the paper suggesting Biden’s election to the highest office in the land should be considered in light of this allegation? Where is the denunciation of suggestions Reade might be making this up? Where is the paper’s call for everyone who cares about the integrity of the White House to join in taking this seriously? Where is the statement that Biden’s denial puts his currently credibility at stake? In short, where is the treatment the Times gave Christine Blasey Ford?
It’s not here obviously, and given the 19 days it took the Times’ news division to even mention the allegation in print and the spin from some of its own columnists, it’s probably not coming anytime soon.


hotair--2020-04-15--NIMBY alert: Don't put the infected homeless in our hotels

We ’ ve been keeping an eye on how the pandemic would affect the homeless in our country since the early days of the outbreak .
At the end of last month , the first signs of this entirely predictable aspect of the coronavirus saga began showing up with the first confirmed cases of COVID-19 being reported in Los Angeles and Seattle .
The problem has only continued to swell from there .
One solution that ’ s been proposed in multiple cities is to begin moving the homeless into hotels , where many rooms are sitting empty as people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The argument in favor of this theory is that the rooms are sitting idle anyway , so why not strike a deal where the hotels can at least make some money while keeping the homeless separate from each other as much as possible .
Unfortunately for proponents of this theory , when this approach has been proposed , people objected and shut the plans down .
( WaPo ) When a homeless shelter in northern Kentucky closed because it could not safely house people under social distancing guidelines , local officials arranged for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it soon became clear that the coronavirus could still spread in such an environment , so shelter director Kim Webb — like her counterparts in dozens of cities nationwide — looked to book hotel rooms for those needing a temporary home .
Webb , the executive director of Emergency Shelter of Northern Kentucky , and other advocates arranged to pay a Springhill Suites hotel in Florence , Ky. , to house 40 people for the month of April — only to have the mayor object .
“ In the middle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to drop 50 or 60 or 70 thousand dollars to put Kentucky residents in hotels — we get the door slammed and told , ‘ There ’ s zoning issues or there ’ ll be code issues , ’ ” Webb said .
“ If we can ’ t rally around people in a pandemic , my concern is : Are we prepared for what ’ s coming ?
” I think pretty much everyone was aware that the coronavirus outbreak was always going to hit the homeless harder than anyone else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s also very likely that the true number of infections and deaths from COVID-19 among the homeless is far greater than we ’ ve been told thus far .
First of all , the homeless tend to die in high numbers on a daily basis to begin with for a variety of reasons .
In 2018 , more than 1,000 homeless people died in Los Angeles County alone , averaging nearly three per day .
All too often there isn ’ t even anyone available to claim the bodies , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done to determine the exact cause of death .
The homeless tend to be in far worse health than the general population , usually lacking proper health care , nutritious food and , obviously , shelter from the elements .
They are therefore among the most vulnerable to the worst effects of the disease .
It ’ s very likely that a lot of them have already died from the virus with the cause of death being written off as the flu , exposure or some combination of other ill effects .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very crowded conditions with little in the way of proper medical care .
You can see how the problem with the virus could rapidly become exponentially worse .
So why aren ’ t hotel rooms a good option ?
I suppose they are , at least in theory .
But the owners of the hotels probably don ’ t want to cut their rates even for a good cause and they don ’ t want to have to deal with the potential damage repairs and sterilization required after the rooms are vacated if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were infected .
Also , there ’ s always the NIMBY issue to deal with .
Even the most well-intentioned people frequently don ’ t want any sort of homeless enclave being set up near their homes .
A better solution needs to be found .
Perhaps some hotel rooms could be used in this fashion in the short term , but this virus is probably going to be with us for quite a while and there are far more homeless people than there are hotel rooms anyway .
Some states have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital facilities on short notice .
Maybe some of that same energy could be channeled into creating temporary homeless housing .

We’ve been keeping an eye on how the pandemic would affect the homeless in our country since the early days of the outbreak. At the end of last month, the first signs of this entirely predictable aspect of the coronavirus saga began showing up with the first confirmed cases of COVID-19 being reported in Los Angeles and Seattle. The problem has only continued to swell from there.
One solution that’s been proposed in multiple cities is to begin moving the homeless into hotels, where many rooms are sitting empty as people are hunkering down in their homes. The argument in favor of this theory is that the rooms are sitting idle anyway, so why not strike a deal where the hotels can at least make some money while keeping the homeless separate from each other as much as possible. Unfortunately for proponents of this theory, when this approach has been proposed, people objected and shut the plans down. (WaPo)
When a homeless shelter in northern Kentucky closed because it could not safely house people under social distancing guidelines, local officials arranged for residents to sleep at a convention center. But it soon became clear that the coronavirus could still spread in such an environment, so shelter director Kim Webb — like her counterparts in dozens of cities nationwide — looked to book hotel rooms for those needing a temporary home. Webb, the executive director of Emergency Shelter of Northern Kentucky, and other advocates arranged to pay a Springhill Suites hotel in Florence, Ky., to house 40 people for the month of April — only to have the mayor object. “In the middle of a pandemic — as we’re trying to drop 50 or 60 or 70 thousand dollars to put Kentucky residents in hotels — we get the door slammed and told, ‘There’s zoning issues or there’ll be code issues,’ ” Webb said. “If we can’t rally around people in a pandemic, my concern is: Are we prepared for what’s coming?”
I think pretty much everyone was aware that the coronavirus outbreak was always going to hit the homeless harder than anyone else, particularly in the big cities. It’s also very likely that the true number of infections and deaths from COVID-19 among the homeless is far greater than we’ve been told thus far.
First of all, the homeless tend to die in high numbers on a daily basis to begin with for a variety of reasons. In 2018, more than 1,000 homeless people died in Los Angeles County alone, averaging nearly three per day. All too often there isn’t even anyone available to claim the bodies, to say nothing of having a proper examination done to determine the exact cause of death.
The homeless tend to be in far worse health than the general population, usually lacking proper health care, nutritious food and, obviously, shelter from the elements. They are therefore among the most vulnerable to the worst effects of the disease. It’s very likely that a lot of them have already died from the virus with the cause of death being written off as the flu, exposure or some combination of other ill effects. Even the ones in shelters tend to face very crowded conditions with little in the way of proper medical care. You can see how the problem with the virus could rapidly become exponentially worse.
So why aren’t hotel rooms a good option? I suppose they are, at least in theory. But the owners of the hotels probably don’t want to cut their rates even for a good cause and they don’t want to have to deal with the potential damage repairs and sterilization required after the rooms are vacated if it turns out some of the guests were infected. Also, there’s always the NIMBY issue to deal with. Even the most well-intentioned people frequently don’t want any sort of homeless enclave being set up near their homes.
A better solution needs to be found. Perhaps some hotel rooms could be used in this fashion in the short term, but this virus is probably going to be with us for quite a while and there are far more homeless people than there are hotel rooms anyway. Some states have been doing impressive work in setting up emergency hospital facilities on short notice. Maybe some of that same energy could be channeled into creating temporary homeless housing.


hotair--2020-04-15--MSNBC host: Do you know how many Americans die during Trump's coronavirus briefings?

Er … the same number of people who would have died even if Donald Trump hadn ’ t held a briefing ?
There may be an argument against having a daily presidential briefing during a crippling national emergency , but this ain ’ t it .
Yesterday evening , MSNBC host complained about Trump ’ s briefing by counting the deaths that took place within them .
Needless to say , this might be the dumbest example of correlation≠causation offered by any significant media figure : Even keeping in mind that Twitter is a platform that seems custom-built for foolishness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For one thing , this kind of statistical comparison for criticism ’ s sake would only make sense in a context of complete inaction .
While Trump played golf , 93 Americans died !
That would also be fatuous as it would assume that some activity in one place meant complete and total inactivity in another , but this is even dumber .
Trump ’ s briefings are specifically focused on the very thing that is killing these Americans , and which has Trump ’ s complete attention at the moment … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Of course , it ’ s even more ridiculous because it ’ s only barely correlative , let alone not being at all causative .
One can just as easily say , “ While Katy Tur hosts her show on MSNBC , 93 Americans die during it !
” Should we cancel Tur on that basis ?
Well , if you don ’ t like that argument , how about the fact that almost four Americans die in automobile accidents every hour that Tur is on the air ?
How many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children — take Tur off the air !
For that matter , how many Americans die in auto accidents while MSNBC is broadcasting ?
Why , it ’ s 32,000 or more a year !
There ’ s a larger point here than just Tur , whom one would have presumed to wise up a bit after getting embarrassed on air after claiming that gerrymandering impacts Senate elections .
At a moment of national crisis , we have a media industry that continues to obsess over whatever Trump said in February rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a national crisis and filling up valuable air time with their petty grievances .
Trump contributes to that by responding in kind , to be sure , but Americans don ’ t care what Trump said in February , at least not at the moment .
They want to know what they ’ ll be doing for a paycheck tomorrow , and whether they can feed their family next week .
The more that media figures indulge themselves in their own petty narratives , the less credible they make themselves .
And the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
1 !
!
Well , kittens die while they talk , so using the Tur standard …

Er … the same number of people who would have died even if Donald Trump hadn’t held a briefing? There may be an argument against having a daily presidential briefing during a crippling national emergency, but this ain’t it. Yesterday evening, MSNBC host complained about Trump’s briefing by counting the deaths that took place within them.
Needless to say, this might be the dumbest example of correlation≠causation offered by any significant media figure:
Keep in mind, Americans are dying during these briefings. During yesterday’s briefing, between 5:30 and 7:45, there were 93 reported deaths. — Katy Tur (@KatyTurNBC) April 14, 2020
Even keeping in mind that Twitter is a platform that seems custom-built for foolishness, this is a remarkably embarrassing comparison. For one thing, this kind of statistical comparison for criticism’s sake would only make sense in a context of complete inaction. While Trump played golf, 93 Americans died! That would also be fatuous as it would assume that some activity in one place meant complete and total inactivity in another, but this is even dumber. Trump’s briefings are specifically focused on the very thing that is killing these Americans, and which has Trump’s complete attention at the moment … even if Tur seems distracted from it.
Of course, it’s even more ridiculous because it’s only barely correlative, let alone not being at all causative. One can just as easily say, “While Katy Tur hosts her show on MSNBC, 93 Americans die during it!” Should we cancel Tur on that basis? Well, if you don’t like that argument, how about the fact that almost four Americans die in automobile accidents every hour that Tur is on the air? How many of those are kids? Think of the children — take Tur off the air!
For that matter, how many Americans die in auto accidents while MSNBC is broadcasting? Why, it’s 32,000 or more a year!
There’s a larger point here than just Tur, whom one would have presumed to wise up a bit after getting embarrassed on air after claiming that gerrymandering impacts Senate elections. At a moment of national crisis, we have a media industry that continues to obsess over whatever Trump said in February rather than what he’s doing now in a national crisis and filling up valuable air time with their petty grievances. Trump contributes to that by responding in kind, to be sure, but Americans don’t care what Trump said in February, at least not at the moment. They want to know what they’ll be doing for a paycheck tomorrow, and whether they can feed their family next week. The more that media figures indulge themselves in their own petty narratives, the less credible they make themselves.
And the more that kittens die!!11!1!! Well, kittens die while they talk, so using the Tur standard …


hotair--2020-04-15--Gov. Cuomo announces executive order requiring face masks in public

During his press conference today , Gov .
Cuomo of New York announced he was issuing an executive order requiring everyone in the state to where a protective covering or mask over their mouth and nose when in public .
“ If you ’ re going to be in public and you can not maintain social distancing then have a mask , ” Cuomo said .
He continued , “ And put the mask on when you are not in socially distant places .
You ’ re walking down the street , you ’ re walking down the street alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at an intersection and there are people in the intersection and you ’ re going to be in proximity to other people , put the mask on .
“ That is by executive order .
So if you ’ re going to get on public transit , you ’ re going to get on a bus , you ’ re going to get on a subway , you ’ re going to stand on a subway platform , you ’ re going to walk in a neighborhood that is busy , you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you ’ re going to pass other people on a sidewalk , you ’ re not going to be able to maintain social distancing , you must wear a mask.
” Cuomo said he was allowing three days for people to comply with the new order .
This is quite a change from what many experts were telling us about masks just a couple months ago .
On Feb. 27 the CDC Director Robert Redfield gave an interview where he said : Redfield also told Congress there was no role for masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for some time , partly because experts were concerned about shortages and medical professionals having to compete with regular people for masks : The WHO was still recommending only sick people wear masks on March 26 : The problem with all of this advice is that many people get the virus and don ’ t know they are sick for several days .
If they are not wearing a mask during that time , they could be spreading the virus to everyone around them without knowing it .
So having everyone to wear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should help with this type of accidental transmission .
Also , it ’ s worth noting that the rule about six feet of separation is really a minimum safe distance .
As the NY Times pointed out this week , it ’ s possible that aerosols created by coughs or sneezes can spread the virus up to 26 feet ( if you ’ re not wearing a mask ) .
Even breathing can probably spread the virus several feet .
The Times published a visualization of this yesterday which is worth a look @

During his press conference today, Gov. Cuomo of New York announced he was issuing an executive order requiring everyone in the state to where a protective covering or mask over their mouth and nose when in public.
“If you’re going to be in public and you cannot maintain social distancing then have a mask,” Cuomo said. He continued, “And put the mask on when you are not in socially distant places. You’re walking down the street, you’re walking down the street alone, great. You’re now at an intersection and there are people in the intersection and you’re going to be in proximity to other people, put the mask on.
“That is by executive order. So if you’re going to get on public transit, you’re going to get on a bus, you’re going to get on a subway, you’re going to stand on a subway platform, you’re going to walk in a neighborhood that is busy, you’re going to be on a sidewalk, you’re going to pass other people on a sidewalk, you’re not going to be able to maintain social distancing, you must wear a mask.”
Cuomo said he was allowing three days for people to comply with the new order. This is quite a change from what many experts were telling us about masks just a couple months ago.
https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/1224648833566695424
Facemasks don't prevent infection. Their use is to keep water droplets IN mask and primary use is for sick people to not project water droplets outward. They don't protect you whatsoever from getting sick. If you're not sick you don't need one. #CoronaVirusUpdates #coronavirususa pic.twitter.com/9rzIPxKikt — David Leavitt (@David_Leavitt) February 26, 2020
On Feb. 27 the CDC Director Robert Redfield gave an interview where he said:
Houlahan: Should you wear a mask if you are healthy? Redfield: No.
Redfield also told Congress there was no role for masks in the community:
“There is no role for these masks in the community,” he old the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday. “These masks need to be prioritized for health care professionals that as part of their job are taking care of individuals.”
This advice persisted for some time, partly because experts were concerned about shortages and medical professionals having to compete with regular people for masks:
The best way to protect yourself and your community is with everyday preventive actions, like staying home when you are sick and washing hands with soap and water, to help slow the spread of respiratory illness.
Get your #FluShot– fewer flu patients = more resources for#COVID19 — Office of the U.S. Surgeon General (@Surgeon_General) February 29, 2020
https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/1234498746664325121
The WHO was still recommending only sick people wear masks on March 26:
If you do not have any respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough, or runny nose, you do not need to wear a medical mask. When used alone, masks can give you a false feeling of protection and can even be a source of infection when not used correctly. ➡https://t.co/0nyHux1SgN pic.twitter.com/JDQhnowx3p — World Health Organization Western Pacific (@WHOWPRO) March 26, 2020
The problem with all of this advice is that many people get the virus and don’t know they are sick for several days. If they are not wearing a mask during that time, they could be spreading the virus to everyone around them without knowing it. So having everyone to wear a mask or face covering in public should help with this type of accidental transmission.
Also, it’s worth noting that the rule about six feet of separation is really a minimum safe distance. As the NY Times pointed out this week, it’s possible that aerosols created by coughs or sneezes can spread the virus up to 26 feet (if you’re not wearing a mask). Even breathing can probably spread the virus several feet. The Times published a visualization of this yesterday which is worth a look.
Here’s the announcement:
Update: Gotta love Vox.


hotair--2020-04-15--Michiganders don't seem to like their governor's authoritarian impulses

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer is feeling the heat these days and it ’ s ( thankfully ) not a fever from the coronavirus .
Some of her citizens are seeing red over her recent executive order expanding the Stay at Home rules that were already in place .
It was apparently a bridge too far for quite a few of them because they ’ ve been organizing protests and setting up social media campaigns to have the order repealed or even demand a recall election .
So when it comes to executive authority during a declared state of emergency , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes to executive orders ?
( NBC News ) Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer signed one of the most restrictive stay-at-home orders in the country late last week in hopes of containing the coronavirus outbreak in her state — one of the hardest hit .
The backlash has been immense .
Michiganders , many from the more conservative areas of the state , believe Whitmer ’ s latest order went too far .
They accused her of stripping them of their constitutional rights .
Online , they pledged to protest , signed petitions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups dedicated to having the order curtailed .
Whitmer ’ s executive action extended her prior stay-at-home order through the end of April and toughened it up .
Whitmer is citing the severe blow her state has taken from the virus as justification for her recent order .
And it ’ s hard to deny that Michigan has been taking a beating .
They saw a large surge in infections starting at the beginning of this month and they ’ re now up to more than 25,000 confirmed cases and over 1,600 deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really seems to be over the top in some ways .
The order forbids travel to vacation homes even if they are inside the state .
Nobody is allowed to go out on the water in a motorboat .
Larger stores are being ordered to block off areas “ dedicated to carpeting , flooring , furniture , garden centers , plant nurseries , or paint , ” in an effort to cut down on foot traffic .
Those not in compliance face a fine or a misdemeanor arrest .
The order about not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be particularly irksome to many residents and it ’ s easy to understand why .
If you have a family that ’ s already living together under one roof and they want to travel together in a car to a different residence , what new risk is being created if they observe other social distancing rules during the trip ?
And… boats ?
There are few other leisure activities that involve more distancing than fishing and boating unless you tend to collide with other boaters on a frequent basis .
Keep in mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claimed to have imposed the needed level of protective measures back on March 17th .
It must not have worked because back then there were only 54 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the state and no deaths .
Still , things managed to spiral out of control following basically the same arc we observed in New York City , though obviously on a vastly reduced scale .
I somehow doubt that the coalition pushing back on these orders will succeed in getting a recall vote started .
And I ’ m similarly dubious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back down and rescind her order .
That would make her look weak and feckless in the middle of a crisis .
But it ’ s yet another reminder that officials around the country are currently flexing their muscles in terms of authoritarian power under declared states of emergency .
Some of these measures may be necessary , but it ’ s always dangerous to allow a politician to get a taste of too much power .
Some of them tend to become addicted to it .

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer is feeling the heat these days and it’s (thankfully) not a fever from the coronavirus. Some of her citizens are seeing red over her recent executive order expanding the Stay at Home rules that were already in place. It was apparently a bridge too far for quite a few of them because they’ve been organizing protests and setting up social media campaigns to have the order repealed or even demand a recall election. So when it comes to executive authority during a declared state of emergency, how far is too far when it comes to executive orders? (NBC News)
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed one of the most restrictive stay-at-home orders in the country late last week in hopes of containing the coronavirus outbreak in her state — one of the hardest hit. The backlash has been immense. Michiganders, many from the more conservative areas of the state, believe Whitmer’s latest order went too far. They accused her of stripping them of their constitutional rights. Online, they pledged to protest, signed petitions calling for her recall and joined Facebook groups dedicated to having the order curtailed. Whitmer’s executive action extended her prior stay-at-home order through the end of April and toughened it up.
Whitmer is citing the severe blow her state has taken from the virus as justification for her recent order. And it’s hard to deny that Michigan has been taking a beating. They saw a large surge in infections starting at the beginning of this month and they’re now up to more than 25,000 confirmed cases and over 1,600 deaths.
But this Stay at Home order really seems to be over the top in some ways. The order forbids travel to vacation homes even if they are inside the state. Nobody is allowed to go out on the water in a motorboat. Larger stores are being ordered to block off areas “dedicated to carpeting, flooring, furniture, garden centers, plant nurseries, or paint,” in an effort to cut down on foot traffic. Those not in compliance face a fine or a misdemeanor arrest.
The order about not traveling to a vacation home seems to be particularly irksome to many residents and it’s easy to understand why. If you have a family that’s already living together under one roof and they want to travel together in a car to a different residence, what new risk is being created if they observe other social distancing rules during the trip? And… boats? There are few other leisure activities that involve more distancing than fishing and boating unless you tend to collide with other boaters on a frequent basis.
Keep in mind that this is the same governor who claimed to have imposed the needed level of protective measures back on March 17th.
3/3: Created COVID-19 task forces
3/6: Ensured Medicaid waiver for copays & cost sharing for testing
3/10: Declared a State of Emergency
3/11: Recommended mitigation strategies
3/12: Expanded access to telemedicine
3/12: Closed all K-12 schools — Governor Gretchen Whitmer (@GovWhitmer) March 17, 2020
It must not have worked because back then there were only 54 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the state and no deaths. Still, things managed to spiral out of control following basically the same arc we observed in New York City, though obviously on a vastly reduced scale.
I somehow doubt that the coalition pushing back on these orders will succeed in getting a recall vote started. And I’m similarly dubious about their prospects for getting Whitmer to back down and rescind her order. That would make her look weak and feckless in the middle of a crisis. But it’s yet another reminder that officials around the country are currently flexing their muscles in terms of authoritarian power under declared states of emergency. Some of these measures may be necessary, but it’s always dangerous to allow a politician to get a taste of too much power. Some of them tend to become addicted to it.


hotair--2020-04-15--Did Hunter Biden lie about resigning from board of China-backed firm?

Well , that Hollywood Hills mansion won ’ t pay for itself , you know .
Almost exactly six months ago , Hunter Biden announced that he would resign from the board of BHR ( Shanghai ) Equity Investment Fund Management Company , the investment management group backed by “ Chinese state-owned entities , ” according to Bloomberg .
Hunter ’ s involvement in the firm — and his use of Joe Biden ’ s 2013 flight on Air Force Two to Beijing to secure backing from those entities — had become a big talking point for Donald Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resigned , his spokesman explained at the time , because Hunter “ never anticipated the barrage of false charges against both him and his father by the President of the United States.
” Speaking of false , however , it now appears that Hunter never did resign from the board .
The Daily Caller did some research on BHR , and guess who ’ s still listed in its official records in China ?
[ S ] ix months after Hunter Biden pledged to relinquish his position with BHR Partners , no evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through on his promise .
… Chinese business records the DCNF accessed Tuesday still name Hunter Biden as a director of BHR .
He also retains a 10 % equity stake in BHR through his company , Skaneateles LLC , business records for the Chinese private equity firm show .
BHR manages the equivalent of $ 2.1 billion in assets , according to its website .
Hunter Biden has served as an unpaid member of BHR ’ s board since its founding in 2013 , and in October 2017 he obtained his equity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 420,000 investment , according to Mesires .
Hunter Biden had arranged for then-Vice President Joe Biden to shake hands with the CEO of BHR in December 2013 , a meeting that caused some White House advisors to worry whether the younger Biden was exposing his father to criticism , The New Yorker reported .
One question might be whether these records are accurate or up to date .
This data comes from BHR ’ s own official filings , however , which shows Skaneateles as a major stakeholder in the firm .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the seat on the board .
BHR might have wanted to exploit Hunter ’ s connections by giving him that seat , but Hunter made sure to keep his personal benefit in place while pledging to resign from the board , whether he did or not .
Either way , Hunter appears to have flat-out lied about the board seat and misled at best about disconnecting from his ties to China .
That means that Hunter will be in position to benefit from his father ’ s China policies if Joe wins the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hunter benefited when Joe was VP .
And what are Joe ’ s China policies ?
The Trump campaign offered this reminder last week : Get ready for a new round of attacks on Biden over China — both Bidens , this time around .
This is not a good year in which to be seen as a lackey of Beijing , needless to say , and Hunter ’ s apparent deception on this point is going to be very tough for Joe to explain away .
Addendum : Jeff Dunetz wonders , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resign from the board of a Chinese company ?
”

Well, that Hollywood Hills mansion won’t pay for itself, you know. Almost exactly six months ago, Hunter Biden announced that he would resign from the board of BHR (Shanghai) Equity Investment Fund Management Company, the investment management group backed by “Chinese state-owned entities,” according to Bloomberg. Hunter’s involvement in the firm — and his use of Joe Biden’s 2013 flight on Air Force Two to Beijing to secure backing from those entities — had become a big talking point for Donald Trump and Republicans in the presidential campaign.
Hunter resigned, his spokesman explained at the time, because Hunter “never anticipated the barrage of false charges against both him and his father by the President of the United States.” Speaking of false, however, it now appears that Hunter never did resign from the board. The Daily Caller did some research on BHR, and guess who’s still listed in its official records in China?
[S]ix months after Hunter Biden pledged to relinquish his position with BHR Partners, no evidence has surfaced to prove he actually followed through on his promise. … Chinese business records the DCNF accessed Tuesday still name Hunter Biden as a director of BHR. He also retains a 10% equity stake in BHR through his company, Skaneateles LLC, business records for the Chinese private equity firm show. BHR manages the equivalent of $2.1 billion in assets, according to its website. Hunter Biden has served as an unpaid member of BHR’s board since its founding in 2013, and in October 2017 he obtained his equity stake in the firm with a $420,000 investment, according to Mesires. Hunter Biden had arranged for then-Vice President Joe Biden to shake hands with the CEO of BHR in December 2013, a meeting that caused some White House advisors to worry whether the younger Biden was exposing his father to criticism, The New Yorker reported.
One question might be whether these records are accurate or up to date. This data comes from BHR’s own official filings, however, which shows Skaneateles as a major stakeholder in the firm. That seems like more of a problem than the seat on the board. BHR might have wanted to exploit Hunter’s connections by giving him that seat, but Hunter made sure to keep his personal benefit in place while pledging to resign from the board, whether he did or not.
Either way, Hunter appears to have flat-out lied about the board seat and misled at best about disconnecting from his ties to China. That means that Hunter will be in position to benefit from his father’s China policies if Joe wins the presidential election, just the same as Hunter benefited when Joe was VP. And what are Joe’s China policies? The Trump campaign offered this reminder last week:
Get ready for a new round of attacks on Biden over China — both Bidens, this time around. This is not a good year in which to be seen as a lackey of Beijing, needless to say, and Hunter’s apparent deception on this point is going to be very tough for Joe to explain away.
Addendum: Jeff Dunetz wonders, “How long does it take to resign from the board of a Chinese company?”


hotair--2020-04-15--Report: Trump considered launching a daily coronavirus radio show in March, as the epidemic was spre

Report: Trump considered launching a daily coronavirus radio show in March, as the epidemic was spreading

Two hours a day , he wanted it to be .
I ’ m tempted to say , “ Imagine any other president carving out multiple hours daily during a national emergency to riff for his fans , particularly when he ’ s already under fire for not doing enough to prepare the country to cope with the epidemic.
” But we don ’ t have to imagine .
We ’ re in that situation right now with the daily coronavirus briefing .
The radio idea , I assume , was his first pass at a substitute for rallies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grievances to an adoring audience at a moment when they couldn ’ t turn out to see him .
But then he noticed the applause Cuomo was getting for his daily coronavirus briefings and the adulation being showered on Fauci for his media tour and realized that he could just repurpose the afternoon COVID-19 information updates for his own uses .
So we ’ re getting the radio show .
It ’ s just being carried on cable news in the late afternoon instead of on AM radio in the morning .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the looks on the faces of his aides when he ran this by them , as they were huddling over how to lock down the economy and limit the number of deaths to under 100,000 people .
What better use of the president ’ s time when the feds are scrambling to supply hospitals with protective equipment than … a radio show ?
What better way to provide useful scientific information to a terrified public than to have our famously unempathetic president going off the cuff every day about hydroxychloroquine and how it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get back to work ?
His reelection would be assured .
On a Saturday in early March , Donald J. Trump , clad in a baseball cap , strode into the Situation Room for a meeting with the coronavirus task force .
He didn ’ t stop by the group ’ s daily meetings often , but he had an idea he was eager to share : He wanted to start a White House talk radio show .
At the time , the virus was rapidly spreading across the country , and Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European travel .
A talk radio show , Mr. Trump excitedly explained , would allow him to quell Americans ’ fears and answer their questions about the pandemic directly , according to three White House officials who heard the pitch .
There would be no screening , he said , just an open line for people to call and engage one-on-one with the president .
But that Saturday , almost as suddenly as he proposed it , the president outlined one reason he would not be moving forward with it : He did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ There would be no screening ” ?
Liberals would have organized dedicated phone banks to try to get through and berate him on the air .
And like 30 percent of the other callers would be calling in to ask about QAnon .
There are two ironies to him not wanting to compete with Rush .
First , the fact that Rush and other talk-radio giants like Hannity carry his daily message forward so faithfully leaves you wondering why the president would feel the need to do a show of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a message out about the coronavirus response , he could just pass it along to them behind the scenes .
This is why I say the idea for a show had to be about him getting some quality time with people who worship him .
If it ’ s about delivering facts on COVID-19 , any number of other people — like Fauci and Birx at the daily briefing — can do that for him .
If it ’ s about ego gratification , he has to do it himself .
The other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible about the threat from coronavirus than Rush has , especially lately .
Righties would actually be better off listening to the president argue that this is a big deal but we need to open up in two weeks than they would from Rush speculating about inflated death tolls and how “ it ’ s just impossible anymore to actually find factual truth.
” Normally the president and his talk-radio guard are stuck in a feedback loop , with them taking their cues from him and him taking his cues from them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the president ’ s ear on the appropriate timeline for America ’ s path to normalcy , Mr. Limbaugh is amplifying Mr. Trump ’ s instinct for swiftness , ” says the Times .
“ And for this president , as well as much of his party , Mr. Limbaugh ’ s affirmation remains a powerful motivator.
” Right , but Fauci and Birx have succeeded — for the moment — in convincing Trump that the epidemic isn ’ t some kind of political hoax designed to hurt him .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this case that ’ s made the president a somewhat more reliable source than parts of populist media , notwithstanding his digressions at the daily briefing .
Maybe he *should* compete with Rush , then .
Donald J. Trump would improve the quality of information being conveyed to grassroots Republicans on this issue .
Speaking of getting distracted from more pressing duties for the sake of ego gratification : The Treasury Department has ordered President Trump ’ s name printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process that could slow their delivery by a few days , senior IRS officials said… The decision to have the paper checks bear Trump ’ s name , in the works for weeks , according to a Treasury official , was announced early Tuesday to the IRS ’ s information technology team .
The team , working from home , is now racing to implement a programming change that two senior IRS officials said will probably lead to a delay in issuing the first batch of paper checks .
They are scheduled to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Fiscal Service for printing and issuing .
Computer code must be changed to include the president ’ s name , and the system must be tested , these officials said .
“ Any last-minute request like this will create a downstream snarl that will result in a delay , ” said Chad Hooper , a quality-control manager who serves as national president of the IRS ’ s Professional Managers Association .
Supposedly the president wanted to sign the checks but he ’ s not authorized to sign for Treasury disbursements .
Treasury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delay caused by adding his name to the memo line on the checks because , well , imagine how bad it would look if they admitted it — a “ populist ” slowing down desperately needed aid for working-class people in the midst of a national crisis because he wanted to take credit for money appropriated by Congress .
I ’ ll give him this much , though : I don ’ t think any of this matters to November .
I wrote somewhere yesterday that if he decides to play hardball with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they won ’ t reopen for business on his timetable , he ’ s risking a backlash that could drive his approval rating below 40 percent .
But in hindsight that ’ s ridiculous .
Nothing ’ s going to happen between now and Election Day , even in the midst of a global depression and an unprecedented pandemic , that ’ s going to steer his job approval more than a few points away from 44-45 percent .
His essential Trumpiness is completely priced into his political stock , no matter how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire Fauci , he could cancel PPE shipments to New York , he could host an eight-hour daily radio show reminiscing about the models he used to nail when he was a developer in New York , and he ’ s still going to be at 44.5 percent or whatever when voting begins .
He might as well do his job exactly how he sees fit .
There won ’ t be any more accountability going forward than there has been up to now .

Two hours a day, he wanted it to be. I’m tempted to say, “Imagine any other president carving out multiple hours daily during a national emergency to riff for his fans, particularly when he’s already under fire for not doing enough to prepare the country to cope with the epidemic.”
But we don’t have to imagine. We’re in that situation right now with the daily coronavirus briefing. The radio idea, I assume, was his first pass at a substitute for rallies, a place where he could vent his grievances to an adoring audience at a moment when they couldn’t turn out to see him. But then he noticed the applause Cuomo was getting for his daily coronavirus briefings and the adulation being showered on Fauci for his media tour and realized that he could just repurpose the afternoon COVID-19 information updates for his own uses. So we’re getting the radio show. It’s just being carried on cable news in the late afternoon instead of on AM radio in the morning.
I’d give anything to have seen the looks on the faces of his aides when he ran this by them, as they were huddling over how to lock down the economy and limit the number of deaths to under 100,000 people. What better use of the president’s time when the feds are scrambling to supply hospitals with protective equipment than … a radio show? What better way to provide useful scientific information to a terrified public than to have our famously unempathetic president going off the cuff every day about hydroxychloroquine and how it’s time to cowboy up and get back to work? His reelection would be assured.
On a Saturday in early March, Donald J. Trump, clad in a baseball cap, strode into the Situation Room for a meeting with the coronavirus task force. He didn’t stop by the group’s daily meetings often, but he had an idea he was eager to share: He wanted to start a White House talk radio show. At the time, the virus was rapidly spreading across the country, and Mr. Trump would soon announce a ban on European travel. A talk radio show, Mr. Trump excitedly explained, would allow him to quell Americans’ fears and answer their questions about the pandemic directly, according to three White House officials who heard the pitch. There would be no screening, he said, just an open line for people to call and engage one-on-one with the president. But that Saturday, almost as suddenly as he proposed it, the president outlined one reason he would not be moving forward with it: He did not want to compete with Rush Limbaugh.
“There would be no screening”? Liberals would have organized dedicated phone banks to try to get through and berate him on the air.
And like 30 percent of the other callers would be calling in to ask about QAnon.
There are two ironies to him not wanting to compete with Rush. First, the fact that Rush and other talk-radio giants like Hannity carry his daily message forward so faithfully leaves you wondering why the president would feel the need to do a show of his own. If he wanted to get a message out about the coronavirus response, he could just pass it along to them behind the scenes. This is why I say the idea for a show had to be about him getting some quality time with people who worship him. If it’s about delivering facts on COVID-19, any number of other people — like Fauci and Birx at the daily briefing — can do that for him. If it’s about ego gratification, he has to do it himself.
The other irony is that Trump has been more responsible about the threat from coronavirus than Rush has, especially lately. Righties would actually be better off listening to the president argue that this is a big deal but we need to open up in two weeks than they would from Rush speculating about inflated death tolls and how “it’s just impossible anymore to actually find factual truth.” Normally the president and his talk-radio guard are stuck in a feedback loop, with them taking their cues from him and him taking his cues from them. “Now, as multiple voices vie for the president’s ear on the appropriate timeline for America’s path to normalcy, Mr. Limbaugh is amplifying Mr. Trump’s instinct for swiftness,” says the Times. “And for this president, as well as much of his party, Mr. Limbaugh’s affirmation remains a powerful motivator.” Right, but Fauci and Birx have succeeded — for the moment — in convincing Trump that the epidemic isn’t some kind of political hoax designed to hurt him. There’s an expert counterweight to populist media in this case that’s made the president a somewhat more reliable source than parts of populist media, notwithstanding his digressions at the daily briefing.
Maybe he *should* compete with Rush, then. Donald J. Trump would improve the quality of information being conveyed to grassroots Republicans on this issue.
Speaking of getting distracted from more pressing duties for the sake of ego gratification:
The Treasury Department has ordered President Trump’s name printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to tens of millions of Americans, a process that could slow their delivery by a few days, senior IRS officials said… The decision to have the paper checks bear Trump’s name, in the works for weeks, according to a Treasury official, was announced early Tuesday to the IRS’s information technology team. The team, working from home, is now racing to implement a programming change that two senior IRS officials said will probably lead to a delay in issuing the first batch of paper checks. They are scheduled to be sent Thursday to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service for printing and issuing. Computer code must be changed to include the president’s name, and the system must be tested, these officials said. “Any last-minute request like this will create a downstream snarl that will result in a delay,” said Chad Hooper, a quality-control manager who serves as national president of the IRS’s Professional Managers Association.
Supposedly the president wanted to sign the checks but he’s not authorized to sign for Treasury disbursements. Treasury denies that there’ll be any delay caused by adding his name to the memo line on the checks because, well, imagine how bad it would look if they admitted it — a “populist” slowing down desperately needed aid for working-class people in the midst of a national crisis because he wanted to take credit for money appropriated by Congress.
I’ll give him this much, though: I don’t think any of this matters to November. I wrote somewhere yesterday that if he decides to play hardball with Democratic governors by withholding federal aid because they won’t reopen for business on his timetable, he’s risking a backlash that could drive his approval rating below 40 percent. But in hindsight that’s ridiculous. Nothing’s going to happen between now and Election Day, even in the midst of a global depression and an unprecedented pandemic, that’s going to steer his job approval more than a few points away from 44-45 percent. His essential Trumpiness is completely priced into his political stock, no matter how insane world events become. He could fire Fauci, he could cancel PPE shipments to New York, he could host an eight-hour daily radio show reminiscing about the models he used to nail when he was a developer in New York, and he’s still going to be at 44.5 percent or whatever when voting begins. He might as well do his job exactly how he sees fit. There won’t be any more accountability going forward than there has been up to now.