Shared posts

16 Apr 23:39

Rogue Louisiana Pastor Tony Spell Disputes Coroner’s Finding That Parishioner Died from COVID-19

by John Wright
James.galbraith

Because lying and letting your parishioners die is The Christian Thing To Do (tm)

Tony Spell
Tony Spell

A parishioner at Louisiana pastor Tony Spell’s megachurch has died from COVID-19, according to the East Baton Rouge coroner.

Spell was recently charged with six misdemeanors for violating the state’s coronavirus restrictions by continuing to hold large services at Life Tabernacle Church in Central. He has said in defending the services that Christians  “do not mind dying” if it means they’ve done it for God and their freedom.

The Baton Rouge Advocate reports that a 78-year-old man who attended the church, Harold Orillion, died Wednesday from COVID-19.

Spell described Orillion as “great member of the church” and one of his “righthand men.” However, the pastor denied that Orillion died from COVID-19.

“That is a lie,” Spell told WAFB-TV.

According to the station, Spell declined to say when Orillion last attended the church.

“The coroner’s report lists the man’s cause of death as acute respiratory distress syndrome, pneumonia, and COVID-19,” WAFB-TV reported. “Acute respiratory distress syndrome and pneumonia are frequently found in patients who die of coronavirus.”

Earlier Thursday, we reported that an attorney representing Spell in his legal battle with the state is now hospitalized with COVID-19.

The post Rogue Louisiana Pastor Tony Spell Disputes Coroner’s Finding That Parishioner Died from COVID-19 appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

16 Apr 21:59

Here’s a state that’s quietly reversing the tea party’s damage

by Greg Sargent
James.galbraith

One would hope so

Could Virginia's latest barrage of legislation be a harbinger of more to come?
16 Apr 20:24

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - A Change

by tech@thehiveworks.com


Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
I'm pretty sure this has been done to me. I haven't worn socks and sandals in weeks now.


Today's News:
16 Apr 20:23

Fox News’ Dr. Oz Calls for Opening Schools Because It Would Only Lead to 2-3% More Deaths: WATCH

by John Wright

Fox News contributor Dr. Mehmet Oz said Thursday that the U.S. should consider reopening schools because it would result in only a 2-3 percent increase in the number of deaths from COVID-19.

“We need our mojo back,” Oz told host Sean Hannity. “Let’s start with things that are really critical to the nation where we think we might be able to open without getting into a lot of trouble.

“I tell you, schools are a very appetizing opportunity,” Oz added. “I just saw a nice piece in The Lancet arguing that the opening of schools may only cost us 2 to 3 percent, in terms of total mortality. And, you know, any life is a life lost, but to get every child back into a school where they’re safely being educated, being fed and making the most out of their lives, with a theoretical risk on the back side, that might be a tradeoff some folks would consider.”

The post Fox News’ Dr. Oz Calls for Opening Schools Because It Would Only Lead to 2-3% More Deaths: WATCH appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

16 Apr 20:15

Despite telling others to stay home, Jared and Ivanka traveled to Trump's NJ golf club for Passover

by Walter Einenkel
James.galbraith

Of course

Ivanka Trump is not a particularly good person. As former Trump housekeeper Sandra Diaz so cleanly explained: “Like her father, she’s a liar.” She’s also entitled and corrupt and, like her father, not particularly bright. Back on March 29, Ivanka tweeted out a video pleading with Americans to help flatten the curve and follow the CDC’s social distancing guidelines, saying: “Those lucky enough to be in a position to stay at home, please do so. Each and every one of us plays a role in slowing the spread, and social distancing saves lives.” Fair enough. But it turns out that those rules do not apply to the Trumps.

The New York Times reports that Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, and their three children traveled to Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey to participate in a first night of Passover celebration. And so, while millions of American Jews and Christians went to Zoom and FaceTime to celebrate Easter and Passover with other friends and families because it was the responsible thing to do, Ivanka and Jared decided to treat the White House like Pharaoh’s Egypt and head off to the Promised Land of … Bedminster, New Jersey.

The White House had no comment for the Times, but sources say that Ivanka and the kids are staying at the golf club, which is closed to the public. Kushner has returned to do whatever it is he’s been doing to generate profits during this crisis. Ms. Trump has also told sources that the golf club offers more social distancing than where they live in Washington, D.C.

16 Apr 19:59

Trump demanded his signature on relief checks, but 'I don't know too much about it,' he now claims

by Laura Clawson
James.galbraith

Ridiculous

How, exactly, did the Trump administration end up delaying $1,200 relief checks in order to get Donald Trump’s name on them? Secretively, The Washington Post reports. It seems that even within the Trump administration, this isn’t a decision people were bragging about.

Trump told Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin he wanted his name on the checks in late March, and, being a massive suck-up, Mnuchin got to work. But quietly. According to The Post, he left “top White House officials in the dark until the plan became public” and “Some senior officials at the IRS did not find out about the plan until Tuesday morning.”

The Internal Revenue Service will be issuing the checks, but wasn’t allowed a role in the decision, and Commissioner Charles Rettig didn’t tell his top officials about it—even when the decision was finalized late on Monday, only five senior IRS officials were told.

Which is a particularly weird level of secrecy when you consider that as of Wednesday, IRS technology staff were working frantically to change the computer code on the template for the checks to add Trump’s name to the memo section of the checks without delaying the checks too much. The Trump administration is insisting that this won’t delay the checks at all, but 1) yeah, right, nice story, and 2) let’s say they were seriously trying not to delay the checks—the effort is being put on the backs of people working remotely under difficult conditions and a ridiculously tight timeline, knowing that millions of people desperately need these checks last week.

“I don’t know too much about it,” Trump claimed on Wednesday, an accurate statement when it comes to the mechanics of making his ego-driven whim become reality, but a ridiculous lie when it comes to the decision to do it to begin with.

Also, he said, “I don’t imagine it’s a big deal.” It’s never been done before because no president ever before was such a narcissist that they demanded it, but hey, no big deal. “I’m sure people will be very happy to get a big, fat, beautiful check and my name is on it,” he continued, underlining the “no big deal” lie. Although does he really think $1,200 is a big, fat, beautiful check for people struggling to pay rent and utilities and buy food and medicine with no jobs and with unemployment insurance applications being processed too slowly?

The secrecy with which this was done doesn’t show that it was intended as a wonderful surprise for the American people. It shows that even people as shameless as surround Trump knew that this was something to be ashamed of, or at least to kick off under cover of secrecy.

15 Apr 23:16

[Josh Blackman] Noel Canning Redux: Justices Breyer and Scalia wrote that the President could use the adjournment power to block Senate "intransigence" (Updated)

by Josh Blackman
James.galbraith

Apologists for a dictator

[No President has ever adjourned Congress before. Yet at least. ]

Today, President Trump said he could adjourn Congress as a means to make recess appointments.

"If the House will not agree to that adjournment, I will exercise my constitutional authority to adjourn both chambers of Congress."

He also referred to pro forma sessions as "phony" and a "scam." I suspect President Obama would agree with him on this point at least.

Article II, Section 3 provides:

[The President] 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

No President has ever used the adjournment power–certainly not to make recess appointments. But this idea is not novel. Justice Scalia flagged it in NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014).

In that case, the Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court to view the recess-appointment power as a "safety valve" against Senatorial "intransigence." The majority opinion by Justice Breyer rejected that position. Breyer explained that the President has other trump cards at his disposal: namely, the adjournment power. He wrote:

Finally, the Solicitor General warns that our holding may "`disrup[t] the proper balance between the coordinate branches by preventing the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions.'" Brief for Petitioner 64 (quoting Morrison v. Olson(1988)). We do not see, however, how our holding could significantly alter the constitutional balance. Most appointments are not controversial and do not produce friction between the branches. Where political controversy is serious, the Senate unquestionably has other methods of preventing recess appointments. As the Solicitor General concedes, the Senate could preclude the President from making recess appointments by holding a series of twice-a-week ordinary (not pro forma) sessions. And the nature of the business conducted at those ordinary sessions — whether, for example, Senators must vote on nominations, or may return to their home States to meet with their constituents — is a matter for the Senate to decide. The Constitution also gives the President (if he has enough allies in Congress) a way to force a recess. Art. II, § 3 ("[I]n Case of Disagreement between [the Houses], with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, [the President] may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper"). Moreover, the President and Senators engage with each other in many different ways and have a variety of methods of encouraging each other to accept their points of view.

Let's use an example. If the Republican-controlled Senate wants to adjourn right now, and the Democratic-controlled House does not want to adjourn right now, there would be a "disagreement with Respect to the Time of Adjournment." Here, the President's "allies in Congress" (Senate Republicans) could set the stage for him to adjourn Congress. And once the Senate is adjourned for more than ten days, per Noel Canning, the recess appointment power is activated.

Justice Scalia concurred, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito. They made a very similar position: the President's friends in Congress could help trigger an adjournment:

The majority replaces the Constitution's text with a new set of judge-made rules to govern recess appointments. Henceforth, the Senate can avoid triggering the President's now-vast recess-appointment power by the odd contrivance of never adjourning for more than three days without holding a pro forma session at which it is understood that no business will be conducted. Ante, at 2555-2556. How this new regime will work in practice remains to be seen. Perhaps it will reduce the prevalence of recess appointments. But perhaps not: Members of the President's party in Congress may be able to prevent the Senate from holding pro forma sessions with the necessary frequency, and if the House and Senate disagree, the President may be able to adjourn both "to such Time as he shall think proper." U.S. Const., Art. II, § 3. In any event, the limitation upon the President's appointment power is there not for the benefit of the Senate, but for the protection of the people; it should not be dependent on Senate action for its existence.

All 9 Justices seemed to agree that the adjournment power could be used to facilitate recess appointments.

Update: My original post attributed a passage to Justice Scalia's concurrence that actually appeared in Justice Breyer's majority opinion. I've revised the post to include Breyer's and Scalia's arguments. They largely agree on this point.

15 Apr 22:30

Trump's White House lifted 3,600 masks from the national stockpile for their own use

by Hunter
James.galbraith

Well that's who Kushner meant by "us"

The Washington Post reports that even as Dear Leader and his merry band of jackasses were still publicly downplaying the pandemic's significance in mid-March, they were lifting 3,600 surgical masks from a shipment intended for the Strategic National Stockpile so as to provide Trump White House staff with their own.

A "senior" National Security Council official had asked for a donation of masks from the government of Taiwan, which had competently managed to quell the pandemic, part of the internal administration efforts to finally acquire medical equipment already running short after literal months of inaction. Taiwan obliged with "hundreds of thousands" of the masks, which evidently made it into the national stockpile for distribution to whichever states the Trump administration found worthy, but not before a few thousand were set aside for White House use.

At this point your instinct is probably to be outraged that even when emergency room personnel were not able to get masks to protect them from the virus running rampant in their hospitals, Trump's team still prioritized allocating some for Dear Leader's staff. (Though note that approximately nobody from this White House has been seen wearing those masks during daily press events.) The Post quotes an anonymous-of-course "administration official" who had a ... different take.

“While the administration had detailed pandemic response plans, somehow those did not include maintaining a supply of masks for White House personnel. That was a lesson learned."

Yes, somehow the Trump White House had, in its "detailed" pandemic response plans that—despite their "detailed" nature and evident "plans"—have turned into a neutron star of failure in every particular respect, oopsied their way into not arranging for even themselves to have pandemic medical supplies. While telling everyone else, in great "detail," how on top of things they were.

Yup. We buy that. Good take, anonymous White House official who may or may not be one of the invisible press office figures who anonymously downplays every other White House fork-in-electrical-socket moment. The plans for how to deal with the pandemic were very, very detailed, but they were if anything so detailed that "so would we need anything around here to keep the government running?" slipped through the cracks.

15 Apr 22:30

The WHO that Trump wants to defund saves lives. Just ask his State Department.

by Greg Sargent
James.galbraith

Surprise. He'll sacrifice anything and anyone to try and avoid blame for his own fuckups

The State Department is telling a very different story from Trump's.
15 Apr 19:32

Trump insists on careening off a cliff—as long as someone else is driving

by kos
James.galbraith

90% of deaths could have been prevented with 2 weeks earlier action...that's on Trump and had bloody well better show up in MANY campaign ads.

Oh boy, here we go. 

New from @kristenHCNN and @DanaBashCNN: "According to sources inside the White House and others familiar with the discussions, there is now a belief that it will be near impossible to get President Trump to steer away from the May 1 reopening of the economy date."

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) April 15, 2020

Impeached president Donald Trump doesn’t think: “How can we save lives?” He thinks: “a bad economy dooms presidents.” And with the economy sinking to Depression-era levels, his panic is palpable. 

Some of the amazing revelations of the coronavirus disaster have been just how impotent Trump is, how afraid he is of action, how paralyzed he is with fear. 

Asked time and time again what he’s done in response to all the warning signs, there are two responses: 1) “Lots of things,” and when pressed to list those things, 2) he closed the border with China. (Aside from the fact that he didn’t really close it, it was a partial closure, and aside from the fact that he did so too late, when the virus was already in the country.) This exchange among public health officials who are trying to desperately get the administration to act is instructive: 

"’Can anyone justify the European travel restriction, specifically?’ Bossert wrote to the group on March 11. ‘Seriously, is there any benefit? I don't see it, but I'm hoping there is something I don't know.’"

"’Fuck no,’ Lawler responded on March 12. ‘This is the absolute wrong move.’ Several other people chimed in, noting the total lack of benefit along with the missed opportunity to do something useful since ‘plenty of disease’ had already arrived in the U.S.’”

But closing borders—something Trump’s racist administration found easy enough to do—seemed like “doing something,” and certainly something Trump could sell to his racist and xenophobic supporters as “action.” Yet it did nothing to address the virus already in the country, and on that front, Trump did worse than nothing: we were actually exporting medical protective equipment to other countries. Trump’s inaction was the best ally the coronavirus could’ve ever hoped for, which is why it’s actually possible to quantify the deaths that can be directly attributed to Trump. The answer? Most of them. 

New epidemiology estimates that 90% of US death could have been prevented by just acting 2 weeks earlier. The estimated number of deaths falls sharply with earlier interventions - th US delay cost thousands of lives. #COVID19 https://t.co/FdSfUp6cck pic.twitter.com/rpIntyyCww

— Eric Feigl-Ding (@DrEricDing) April 15, 2020

Play the graph. Even assuming we “just” have 60,000 dead, 90% of those deaths are directly attributable to Trump’s inaction. 

So why did Trump do nothing? Because he’s afraid of actual actions. He’s afraid of accountability. He’d rather do nothing and let bad things happen than do something and be the reason why something bad happened. 

Think about it: Let’s say he acts decisively and shuts the country down. “Only” 6,000 people die, but we’re all holed up in our homes with Depression-level unemployment and mass economic devastation. In Trump’s calculation, he’d be directly at fault for destroying the economy. And with the low number of deaths, it would seem unjustifiable. 

Keep in mind that Democrats wouldn’t attack him for that. We were screaming at him to take action early during the crisis. But he doesn’t think about what Democrats would do. He thinks about what he would do. And of course, if the situation were reversed, he’d be on the attack for shutting things down. 

And we don’t even have to guess at that. Look at Michigan Republicans attacking their Democratic governor even though Michigan has one of the worst death tolls in the country from the virus: 

Thousands of people from all over Michigan are converging on our state Capitol today to protest the governor�s restrictive �Stay Home� order and get their voices, and car horns, heard. #OperationGridlock pic.twitter.com/bgjH4wKCUQ

— MI House Republicans (@MI_Republicans) April 15, 2020

So we know that Trump didn’t act because he wanted to avoid culpability for the consequences of shutting the nation down. This way, he could blame Democratic governors, he could blame the Chinese, he could blame fate, he could blame the World Health Organization, he could blame former president Barack Obama—he could blame everyone and anything except himself. 

Reporter: Joe Biden is now the presumptive Democratic nominee. When will he get a briefing on the coronavirus situation? Trump: Well, they had the H1N1. That was a big failure. They had a lot of failures. A big failure. 17,000 people died. [No, 12,000. Half of the COVID number.]

— David Waldman-1, of Yorktown LLCâÂ�¢ (@KagroX) April 13, 2020

Everyone fails except Trump. He can only be failed. 

But what’s this—now Trump wants to take action by “reopening” the country at the end of the month?

Remember, Trump can’t reopen what he never shut down. He did declare himself dictator, said his power was absolute as president, but had to embarrassingly admit defeat a day later. Well, almost. He backtracked Trump-style, without admitting he was wrong: 

"I will then be authorizing each individual governor of each individual state to implement a reopening" pic.twitter.com/Hva4QXuTsH

— Colby Hall (@colbyhall) April 14, 2020

I, myself, also authorized every governor to reopen when they deem it possible. In addition, I authorize the Supreme Court to make rulings on the law. And I authorize Congress to pass laws. It’s fun to randomly authorize things!

Blue states won’t listen to him. Heck, they’re organizing against him to get the resources they need, to make the decisions that need to be made based on sound science and data. Problem is, red state governors will slavishly follow his lead, so Florida beaches will reopen, restaurants will open back up, bars will fill up. Who knows—the NFL might play in full stadiums in certain states. And the virus, already a partisan issue, will only become more so. 

The narrative is easy: The libs are trying to use the virus to tank the economy, all of it to make Trump look bad. 

But Trump is Trump. And as we already established up above, he’s deathly afraid to make decisions. He’s deathly afraid of accountability. He’s deathly afraid of being blamed. So he won’t decisively step up to the podium and say: “We’re opening up the economy, it’s my decision, and the buck stops here!” That would mean that the resultant death toll would be on him and him alone. Instead, this is happening: “Trump’s advisers are trying to shield the president from political accountability should his move to reopen the economy prove premature and result in lost lives, and so they are trying to mobilize business executives, economists and other prominent figures to buy into the eventual White House plan, so that if it does not work, the blame can be shared broadly.” (Emphasis mine.)

If it worked, of course, the credit wouldn’t be shared broadly. That’s not how Trump works. Heck, he’s been taking credit for what the governors have been able to accomplish, things that had nothing to do with him. 

Rather, it’s all about protecting him from the negative consequences of his own actions. The buck will never stop at his desk. Kerry Eleveld calls it “Operation Scapegoat,” which sounds about right

Trump was impeached because of his scheme to get Ukraine to make up an investigation into Joe Biden’s son, because he doesn’t have the confidence to run and win on his own meager accomplishments. That was a scheme hatched out of fear and desperation. 

And once again, here we are, with the nation in the throes of a mass-death event, and we have a president acting out of fear and desperation. 

We could ask Trump to heed FDR’s famous adage about fear, but he’d be too stupid to get it. He did just compare himself favorably to the captain in Mutiny on the Bounty. He’s a stupid, stupid man. And in any case, he’d just use it as an opportunity to blame FDR for Trump’s own problems today. It’s tough being president when the whole world fails to make you a success.

15 Apr 18:25

America’s embarrassingly mediocre coronavirus testing, in 2 charts

by Dylan Scott
James.galbraith

Gee, I wonder why

People sit in a line of cars while masked and gowned health care workers approach to test for the coronavirus. America’s Covid-19 coronavirus testing is still lagging far behind what’s needed to end social distancing. | E. Jason Wambsgans/Chicago Tribune via Getty Images

The US has improved from “horrifically bad” to “woefully short” on Covid-19 tests.

Over the last week, from April 8-15, the US averaged about 151,000 coronavirus tests per day. At the end of last month, from March 25 to April 1, the country was performing about 110,000 tests every day.

The number of tests done each week is going up, which is good. But experts say that’s far short of the millions upon millions more tests America needs to conduct every day if we’re to resume anything resembling normal life. Testing right now is not nearly good enough.

If the Trump administration is serious about starting to reopen the country soon and wants to avoid a lot more people getting sick, they need to fix the testing problem — fast. Because right now, we’re staring down the potentially toxic mixture of relaxed social distancing and insufficient testing.

To end social distancing, as Vox’s Umair Irfan put it quite plainly: “Test millions. Test early. Test late. Test over and over. Test until the whole damn pandemic is over.”

The path forward is clear, according to Umair’s reporting:

Following through on this would require a massive increase in government funding, huge numbers of workers trained to administer the tests, and the coordination of raw materials, manufacturing, and delivery across the entire global economy. It’s a costly, brute-force approach. But it may be the only way out of the expensive and blunt measures already deployed to control the pandemic, from social distancing to shelter-in-place orders.

Right now, however, the US is struggling to test even 100,000 people per day, so getting to the scale some researchers suggest would demand a huge ramp up in capacity. Yet, they say, it’s possible to do it. And despite the immense financial and social costs of a national testing system, it may yet be the cheapest path to reopening the economy.

But right now, our testing capability is being restrained, remarkably, by two equal but opposing forces: supply shortages, which limits the number of tests that can be processed, and overly restrictive testing criteria, which curbs the number of tests ordered even when labs have actually more testing capacity.

”The system is decentralized and not coordinated,” Jen Kates, director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told me. “And the federal government has not stepped in to provide that coordination and help ramp up the manufacturing. Finally, we have such a testing deficit that we are playing a terrible game of catch-up.”

In both cases, the Trump administration and Congress could do more to fix it. More federal funding would help labs keep their capacity up, and less-stringent federal guidelines would allow doctors and hospitals to order more tests so everyone can better understand the scope of the pandemic.

As Brian Resnick and I reported a month ago, the testing fiasco started with faulty test kits getting sent out to labs. That problem has been fixed, thankfully; there are still some concerns about test accuracy, but that has been a problem for every country and would theoretically be mitigated if we were testing a whole lot more.

But now, testing is sluggish. Labs are either overwhelmed because they’re short on staff and supplies, or they’re sitting open because federal guidance is restricting how many people get tested.

Vox’s German Lopez covered the first problem late last week:

There is no widely accepted number for how many tests America should run each day, but the current number is generally considered far too low by experts. Jha put the ideal at 500,000 tests a day. Scott Gottlieb, former FDA commissioner and coauthor of the AEI report, suggested that everyone who goes to a doctor could be tested, which would amount to more than 500,000 a day. A Harvard model proposed millions of tests a day.

Complaints vary, but labs say they don’t have enough swabs, test kits, reagents, personal protective equipment (PPE), staff, or machines to run the specific tests required.

“Any one link in the chain of supply, any restriction in the chain of supply, can suddenly create a bottleneck,” Louise Serio, a spokesperson for the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA), which represents the private labs, told me. “No labs have, really, the predictable, consistent access to all the supplies we need, from reagents to test kits to PPE.”

Labs need more money, both for these supplies and to keep their staff employed, as their finances have taken a hit with most other kinds of medical testing sharply falling during the pandemic.

At the same time, Politico reported on Tuesday that some commercial labs were “now sitting with unused testing capacity waiting for samples to arrive.” The trade association for commercial labs, the American Clinical Laboratory Association, was practically begging for the testing criteria to be loosened.

“ACLA members have now eliminated testing backlogs, and have considerable capacity that is not being used,” ACLA President Julie Khani told Politico’s David Lim. “We stand ready to perform more testing and are in close communication with public health partners about ways we can support additional needs.”

The FDA commissioner, Stephen Hahn, was quoted saying the administration was examining the issue.

Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, Recode’s Rani Molla and I update our estimates of how many people the US and other countries are testing. If you look back over the last month, the US has come a long way — but not far enough.

This was our chart from March 18, when the United States was embarrassingly behind:

 Rani Molla and Dylan Scott/Vox

And this is our chart from April 16. America has risen all the way up to ... mediocre compared to Italy (another one of the epicenters) and Germany (a model for good testing practices).

 Rani Molla and Dylan Scott/Vox

We have to get this right — and fast. As Vox’s Ezra Klein wrote last week, every single plan to relax social distancing and start to get life back to normal again depends on a dramatic increase in testing. Nobel laureate Paul Romer thinks we should be conducting 22 million tests every day. By that standard, the US testing capacity has barely budged since the last week of March. Even much less ambitious testing proposals remain far out of reach for the time being.

Setting aside the issue of scale, there is also little coordination in how the tests are being administered. Laurie Garret, a Pulitzer-winning author who has covered prior outbreaks, said we need a strategy for testing both the vulnerable populations (like nursing-home residents) and people who we want to return to their regular routines (like students).

”We need wisdom,” Garrett said. “Right now it’s nothing more than chaotic supply-and-demand.”

More than 600,000 cases and 26,000 deaths into this crisis and America still hasn’t risen to the challenge.

This story appears in VoxCare, a newsletter from Vox on the latest twists and turns in America’s health care debate. Sign up to get VoxCare in your inbox along with more health care stats and news.

Join the conversation

Are you interested in more discussions around health care policy? Join our Facebook community for conversation and updates.


Support Vox’s explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

15 Apr 18:19

Jussie Smollett Had Sexual Relationship, Visited Bathhouse with Alleged ‘Attacker’ — REPORT

by Towleroad
James.galbraith

Is anyone surprised?

jussie smollett pleads

Former Empire actor Jussie Smollett had a sexual relationship with his alleged ‘attacker’ Ambimbola “Abel” Osundairo, and they visited a Chicago bathhouse multiple times, according to a report in the New York Post.

Page Six reports: “‘They used to party together and he had a sexual relationship with [Abel]. They went to this affluent Chicago bathhouse multiple times and they had to show ID. It’s known as a bathhouse where a lot of affluent black gay men hang out. There should be a record [of their visits],’ an insider told Page Six, adding that the bathhouse records may be subpoenaed in Smollett’s upcoming trial on charges of disorderly conduct.”

Osundairo and his brother Ola told police they were paid by Smollett to stage the hate crime against the Empire actor. Abel and Ola have denied they are gay and filed a lawsuit against Smollett’s lawyers for defamation, which has since been dismissed.

“The suit claimed the comments put the brothers and their family, who are Nigerian, at risk due to the country’s inhumane laws that state homosexuality is punishable by up to 14 years in prison and death by stoning if the person is married,” Page Six added.

In February, Smollett pleaded not guilty to six new charges of disorderly conduct in Chicago related to an investigation by special prosecutor Dan Webb in connection with the January 2019 racist and homophobic attack Smollett allegedly staged with the brothers.

The post Jussie Smollett Had Sexual Relationship, Visited Bathhouse with Alleged ‘Attacker’ — REPORT appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

15 Apr 18:08

Trump seeks new scapegoat for deaths caused by his fixation on reopening America by May 1

by Kerry Eleveld
James.galbraith

It only works if the patsies play along

Donald Trump's COVID-19 response has proven to be an unmitigated failure with fresh reporting rendering it ever worse by the day. Trump and the Senate Republicans who voted to keep him in charge to lead America to slaughter are as desperate as ever to lay the blame for Trump's debacle at someone else's feet. In rapid succession, they've pointed the fingers at Democrats, impeachment, governors, and are presently trashing the World Health Organization (WHO) because, they say, it failed to contain and isolate the coronavirus in China. In other words, Trump is particularly pissy because WHO didn't do his No. 1 job for him—protecting Americans. Never mind the fact that WHO actually doesn't have the authority or mandate to go into a country and take over a health response.

But even amid Republicans' orchestrated bid to pin the blame elsewhere for his past failures, Trump can't wait to reopen America for business, even if it comes at the expense of more American lives. So as Trump fixates on jumpstarting the economy again by May 1, his team of ghouls is working feverishly to get broad buy-in so Trump won't be stuck holding the body bag if coronavirus cases spike again, according to the Washington Post.

The question isn't really if or even when anymore, it's moved to how. “He desperately wants to reopen as much as possible on May 1,” one former official briefed on the matter told the Post. “He’s been that way from the beginning, and he has not wavered. He seems determined to do it."

So in order to build in a "shield" of shared responsibility in case Trump’s plan goes horribly wrong, the Post writes that Trump's advisers "are trying to mobilize business executives, economists and other prominent figures to buy into the eventual White House plan, so that if it does not work, the blame can be shared broadly." In other words, Trump's aides want to make sure Trump has scapegoats at the ready.

Just to be clear, the main driver of Trump's urgency to reopen isn't about easing the financial pain that so many Americans are experiencing right now. Trump's chief goal and obsession is goosing his own reelection bid. That's why lives are really no object to him. Trump has chosen May 1 as his target date because he's antsy, not because any public health officials have told him that's a reasonable timeframe to begin easing social distancing restrictions.

And if you're wondering what the rush is, many presidential strategists say that, generally speaking, voters' perceptions of the economy for the upcoming election are typically baked in by the end of the second quarter. If that holds true this cycle (and who really knows?), Trump would need the economy to start humming again in the next couple months since it's really the only reelection rationale he has provided to voters who aren't outright racists and white supremacists. 

Anyway, the West Wing is trying to recruit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to provide a "national return to work plan," aka Operation Scapegoat. So expect to a see a huge push from the White House and conservative groups like FreedomWorks and the Heritage Foundation to get America back to work, or to "Save Our Country," as they have nicknamed the White House working group. Sounds just as foolproof as all Trump’s schemes. 

15 Apr 18:08

Kentucky just made it harder to vote during a pandemic

by Ian Millhiser
James.galbraith

Of course they did, because the GOP won't let a little thing like receiving fewer votes stop them from trying to destroy the country.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell speaks to the media at the Capitol on April 9. | Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Wisconsin-style tactics come to Kentucky.

Kentucky’s heavily Republican legislature voted Tuesday to require voters to show a government-issued photo ID, overriding Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto in the process.

Meanwhile, if a Kentucky voter heads to the state’s webpage hoping to learn how to obtain such an ID, they will encounter a message telling them ID-issuing offices are closed.

Strict voter ID laws are increasingly common in Republican-controlled states, and left-leaning groups like students, low-income voters, and voters of color are especially less likely to have the ID that these laws require. Although voter ID’s policy proponents often argue that the measure is necessary to combat voter fraud at the polls, such fraud is so rare that it is virtually nonexistent.

While voter ID laws, at best, are a solution in search of a problem, Kentucky’s new law could prove to be a particularly potent attack on the right to vote during a pandemic.

Voter ID laws serve no legitimate purpose

The ostensible function of a voter ID law is to prevent someone from impersonating another voter in order to cast a ballot in their name. But numerous studies and investigations show that the primary form of voter fraud addressed by these laws, impersonation fraud at the polls, is only slightly more common than unicorns.

A study by Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt, who led much of the Justice Department’s voting rights work during the Obama administration, found only 35 credible allegations of in-person voter fraud among the 834 million ballots cast in the 2000-2014 elections. A Wisconsin study found just seven cases of any kind of fraud among the 3 million cast in the 2004 election — and none of these seven were the kind that could be prevented by voter ID. In 2014, Iowa’s Republican Secretary of State Matt Schultz announced the results of a two-year investigation into election misconduct within his state. He found zero cases of voter impersonation at the polls.

Notably, when the Supreme Court allowed an Indiana voter ID law to take effect in Crawford v. Marion County (2008), it was only able to identify a single case of in-person voter fraud at the polls in the preceding 140 years.

Voter ID laws target an imaginary problem, but at least some studies show that they particularly affect voters who lean Democratic. While there’s no firm research consensus on the laws’ effect, several studies have found that voter ID has no meaningful impact on voter turnout (although others have found significant effects). In a close election, though, even a small effect on turnout could matter.

At best, voter ID achieves nothing at all in an ordinary election while erecting an additional barrier to people exercising their right to vote — a barrier that disproportionately affects low-income and black and Latino Americans. Under normal circumstances, voter ID could potentially make a difference in a close election.

Voter ID could have severe consequences during a pandemic

It’s far from clear that November’s general election will be anything resembling normal.

Late last month, Gov. Beshear handed down an executive order providing that “all businesses that are not life-sustaining shall cease operations ... except as needed to conduct Minimum Basic Operations.” Among other things, the order suspends “all in-person government activities ... that are not necessary to sustain or protect life, or to supporting Life-Sustaining Businesses.”

Thus, Kentucky voters who lack an ID — perhaps because they recently moved to the state and didn’t get around to obtaining a Kentucky driver’s license before the coronavirus lockdown began — may be unable to obtain this ID in time to vote because the state offices that issue such IDs are closed. The future of life under coronavirus remains very uncertain, and it is, as yet, unclear when the country will return to anything resembling normal.

Even if Kentucky is able to relax restrictions as more testing for the virus becomes available, it may need to reimpose strict limits on businesses and government offices if an outbreak occurs. Voters may only have a limited window to acquire an ID, and that window might close just as a particular voter was preparing to obtain one.

Kentucky’s law, moreover, also resembles a similar Wisconsin law in that it requires voters to show ID in order to obtain an absentee ballot. So voters without ID cannot escape the law by voting by mail.

The new law does permit some voters to cast a ballot without showing photo ID — if they sign a sworn statement affirming that they are lawful voters and providing certain information. But this exemption from the photo ID requirement is only available to a limited group of voters, and it is far from clear that a healthy voter qualifies because they were unable to obtain an ID because government offices were shut down during a pandemic.

Although the law allows a voter to cast a ballot without showing photo ID if they were prevented from getting an ID due to “disability or illness,” the statute is not clear on whether the voter must themselves be infected by this illness in order to qualify. And voters who misuse the exemption could potentially face perjury charges.

It’s worth noting that there could potentially be a very high-profile race on Kentucky’s ballot this November. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is up for reelection, and there is some evidence that McConnell could be defeated if 2020 is a strong year for Democrats. In January, for example, one poll showed McConnell just 3 percentage points ahead of possible Democratic challenger Amy McGrath, and a second poll showed McConnell and McGrath tied.

So, while the impact of voter ID is uncertain under normal circumstances, there are good reasons to believe that such a law could have a larger effect during a pandemic. Whether that impact would be enough to skew a close election from McGrath to McConnell is also unclear. But, at the very least, many voters could struggle to cast a ballot if they are unable to obtain the IDs they need to vote.


Support Vox’s explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

15 Apr 17:40

Americans are dying by the thousands. All Trump cares about is the show.

by Paul Waldman
James.galbraith

Yes indeed

This is what we should have been afraid of when we elected a reality-TV star.
15 Apr 17:38

Why millions of college students and young adults won’t get a stimulus check

by Terry Nguyen
James.galbraith

Seriously

A person opens up an empty billfold wallet. Under the CARES Act, dependents age 17 to 24 won’t receive a $1,200 stimulus check or qualify for a $500 child bonus. | Getty Images

Any person age 17 to 24 who was claimed as a dependent won’t be eligible for the $1,200 payment or the $500 child bonus.

Rachel Sherman lost her two streams of income seemingly overnight on March 19. California officials had implemented a statewide stay-at-home order, and the 23-year-old was working at a Los Angeles gym and restaurant — two nonessential businesses that were forced to close. Her two service jobs were helping to keep her afloat after her college graduation last May as she searched for career opportunities in journalism.

While Sherman filed for unemployment shortly after her layoffs in March, she was disheartened to realize she didn’t qualify for another form of financial relief — a $1,200 check as part of the federal government’s $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus package — because she was claimed as a dependent on her parents’ 2019 tax return.

”I’m getting some money for my unemployment benefits, but it’s nothing compared to what the stimulus check would’ve been,” Sherman told me. “I’m grateful I have a cushion for groceries and utilities, but it doesn’t really help cover my rent, which is $1,000 a month, or make me feel somewhat more secure.”

Sherman is one of the many people ages 17 to 24 who won’t be getting a check because of her tax filing status as a dependent. Under the coronavirus stimulus bill, or the CARES Act, most taxpayers will receive a one-time payment from the Internal Revenue Service: Those who earn $75,000 or less a year are eligible for a $1,200 check (or $2,400 for couples who filed jointly), with an additional $500 bonus for each dependent age 16 years or younger. However, families who have dependents in the 17-24 age group are entirely excluded from receiving any money for that child, including the $500 bonus granted to their younger kids.

The economic fallout due to Covid-19 has ruined the finances of millions of Americans, and for many, the stimulus check is intended to provide much-needed, albeit temporary, relief. A Data for Progress survey of 2,644 people in early April found that 52 percent of respondents under 45 had lost their jobs, been placed on leave, or had their hours cut.

Still, the CARES Act excludes millions of people, including immigrants without a Social Security number, green card, or eligible work visas; elderly or disabled people who are claimed as dependents; and dependents ages 17 to 24. Critics of the bill, including proponents of universal basic income, say that establishing certain qualifications for a stimulus payment is a form of means-testing that hurts vulnerable people. Plus, a majority of taxpayers who qualify for the money say that the amount is inadequate to cover living expenses for more than a month.

The IRS defines a dependent as someone who relies on a benefactor for more than 50 percent of their expenses and earns less than $4,200 a year in taxable income. However, the age cut-off for dependent bonuses in the CARES Act is likely “a relic of the tax system” that has “an odd definition as to what a child is,” said Elaine Maag of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Parents can receive up to a $2,000 tax refund for each child under the age of 17 each year they file thanks to the child tax credit established in 1997.

”This under-17 rule for the child tax credit is just a product of a budget process,” Maag told me. “There’s a certain amount of money that’s going to go into child tax credit, and whatever amount was chosen could cover kids up to 16.” By her estimates, there are about 4 million dependents ages 17 and 18 in high school who won’t qualify for the $500 bonus, and about 9 million who are under 24 and full-time students, most of whom won’t receive any money. (Maag acknowledged that a small percentage of that group might be married and are therefore likelier to file a joint tax return, which doesn’t categorize them as a dependent.)

Young adults, grappling with a recession and a depressed labor market in their future, are arguing that the stimulus package unjustly leaves out dependents who might also be taxpayers and workers with expenses of their own. Many are saying that any monetary support — either to a dependent or their parent — would be better than none, regardless of a dependent’s age.

”If their parents are getting $1,200 each and also getting $500 for each kid 16 and under, why are dependent 17-24 year olds not getting something?” one Twitter user asked. “Please explain to me, using the framework put forth that parents will pay, how providing no money to that age group makes sense?”

Most young adults are categorized as a dependent to qualify for federal student aid or to receive health care benefits, even if they aren’t living at home or receiving all their money from their parents. On the Department of Education’s website, it states that a dependent’s parent is not required to pay anything toward a student’s education, and the tax status “is just a way at looking at everyone in a consistent manner.”

Some dependents ages 17 to 24 hold lower-paying, entry-level jobs, have less-secure housing arrangements, and struggle with student loan debt. They also tend to have more personal expenses than younger dependents, like car insurance or credit card bills. Data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2018 revealed that about 36 percent of youths aged 16 to 24 participated in the workforce (either part-time or full-time) while enrolled in school, compared to 79 percent of the same age group who are not in school.

A significant percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds are not in college or pursuing post-secondary education: Only 49 percent of US adults in that age range are enrolled in or have completed college, according to data from the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Kids Count (Other data sets show a slight fluctuation in education participation rate). Some of these young adults might be considered independent if they earn more than $4,200 a year, but according to the Pew Research Center, only a quarter of them are financially independent from their parents by 22 or younger.

Still, given the level of workforce participation among 18- to 24-year-olds, millions of young Americans make their own money and could lose income in the face of skyrocketing unemployment. Furthermore, as a record number of people file for unemployment, some states are struggling to process the number of claims they’ve received. Unemployment websites and systems are crashing, and getting on the phone with any state’s office has proven to be a difficult and time-consuming task — which means there are likely more unemployed workers than those who have already filed for benefits.

Some of those will be dependents who won’t receive anything from the CARES Act. “Some of us are full-time students working jobs, trying to pay our bills on the little money that we have,” said Kyleigh Beck Rhone, a 21-year-old community college student in Arizona. “It’s frustrating because, just like other adults with jobs and bills to pay, we’re still seen as young children in the government’s eyes, despite how we pay taxes like every other working person in America.”

“It’s frustrating because [we’re] just like other adults with jobs and bills to pay [but] we’re still seen as young children in the government’s eyes”

Beck Rhone had taken a semester off, working at a local gym to help pay her rent until she lost her job in March and didn’t qualify for unemployment. The $1,200 check would’ve helped a lot, she said, since she’s now pulling from her savings to pay any bills. The young adults I spoke to wanted to dispel the myth that all dependents, specifically college students, are privileged and have their education and expenses paid for — a stereotype that is clearly false. And for those who do lean on their parents for help, many are from working-class families who won’t receive any monetary bump for having an adult dependent.

Currently, there is no appeal process in place for any type of dependent, including recently employed graduates or workers who provide for themselves. Those who became financially independent in 2020, however, will eventually receive the stimulus money they’re owed in 2021 if they file their 2020 tax return, Maag said. Yet the promise of future money fails to alleviate the current stress and financial struggles plaguing most people. “I haven’t even thought about how I’ll pay next month’s rent because I just don’t know what’s going to change,” Sherman told me.

”What good is money in the future if my credit score is ruined and I can’t pay my bills?” said Jamie Agustin, a 23-year-old paralegal based in New Jersey who was a dependent in 2019. Agustin, who lives with her 17-year-old brother and parents, is clocking in significantly fewer hours at her firm and is worried that her family of four is only receiving $2,400 from the stimulus payment. Her father is also working less at his restaurant job, and her mother was laid off from her retail job.

”My brother is 17, but his age doesn’t affect how much money he’s costing my parents, so the age requirement is ridiculous,” Agustin added. “To me, means testing is just another way to deny people money that they need.”

Since mid-March, millions of college students have been displaced by the chaos of campus shutdowns across the country. While many have a home to return to, some students, particularly those who are low-income or housing-insecure, are struggling to find even basic resources, like a place to sleep and food, and have to rely on mutual aid primarily organized by other students.

Harvard students carry boxes as they move out of their dorm rooms on March 12. Maddie Meyer/Getty Images
Across the country, hundreds of college campuses shut down in March, and most only offer limited housing options for students who aren’t able to return home.

Javan Smith, a freshman at St. John’s College in Maryland, is registered as a dependent to receive financial aid, and splits tuition payments with his father. Since he left home, he has primarily funded himself through a work-study job and had his meals at the school’s dining hall. At home, he says, “there isn’t a lot of leeway with money.”

”Maybe the majority of college students are being supported by their parents’ income, but that’s not my reality,” Smith, who’s currently working about 10 hours a week, told me. Due to a family situation, he’s currently stuck in Maryland after campus shut down and has moved out of his dorm into a house with five other students; St. John’s didn’t offer them housing.

”If I went back to Tennessee, I wouldn’t have a place to stay. I’m basically trapped in this city, and we all don’t have enough money to pay the $1,800 rent at the end of the month,” Smith said. “Even if we, as a house, received $1,000 a person, that’s about $5,000 in rent for a couple of months.”

For many, the stimulus check would’ve provided a crucial financial buffer for a month or two: Smith is starting an on-campus summer job in May that’ll give him more hours. Meanwhile, Sherman, who was laid off from her two service jobs, is worried that she’ll have to file as a dependent again on her 2020 tax return later this year.

”I might’ve been a dependent, but before this, I was making my own money, paying for my own rent, and being basically independent but not on paper,” she said. “As job opportunities continue to decrease, I might have to be a dependent again, at least for health insurance. It’s a weird limbo place to be in because I can’t get some money from the government.”


Support Vox’s explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

15 Apr 17:37

I want to donate plasma for an experimental Covid-19 treatment. Because of homophobia, I can’t.

by Jack Turban
James.galbraith

Of course

A mobile unit assistant with the Red Cross scans bags and tubes at a blood donation drive in San Diego, California, on April 14. In collaboration with the FDA, the Red Cross is actively recruiting plasma donors who have recovered from Covid-19. | Ariana Drehsler/AFP via Getty Images

The current FDA policy is discriminatory and not based in science.

A few weeks ago, I came down with a mild cough and a runny nose. I heard seasonal allergies were starting early and didn’t think much of it.

The next day, I was exhausted and had a splitting headache. As a doctor, I was required to get tested for Covid-19 before I could go back to work in the emergency room. The result was positive.

Fortunately, I’m already back to feeling like myself. I was one of the lucky people with relatively mild symptoms.

Now that I’m well, my blood could be used as an experimental cure for the new coronavirus. But because of homophobia, that won’t happen.

How plasma transfusions could treat coronavirus patients

New research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) describes an experimental treatment for those dying from Covid-19 called convalescent plasma transfusion. The procedure starts with collecting blood from people who have recovered from the virus. These donors have Covid-19-fighting antibodies that circulate in their blood, proteins made by the immune system that can bind to and neutralize the virus.

Once the blood donation is collected, researchers remove all the cells, and the result is plasma: a protein-rich solution that contains the anti-Covid-19 antibodies. This plasma is then transfused into the bloodstream of patients dying from the virus.

The thinking goes that the antibodies in the plasma will bind to the coronavirus, neutralize it, and help the patient recover. Similar strategies have been used for infectious diseases going as far back as the 1918 flu pandemic.

In the JAMA study, five critically ill patients were treated with the intervention, and by 12 days after the treatment, none had detectable virus in their bloodstream. A second study of 10 patients in the journal PNAS showed similar promise. The data we have so far on the treatment’s efficacy are preliminary, and we still need high-quality controlled trials. But it could save lives.

Researchers are so excited about this approach as a potential treatment that there are now at least 10 clinical trials ongoing around the world. In collaboration with the Food and Drug Administration, the Red Cross is actively recruiting plasma donors who have recovered from the disease. You can sign up here. That is, unless, you’re gay.

The current FDA policy is discriminatory and not based in science

The FDA says I can’t donate blood or plasma because I’m gay. In 1985, during the AIDS epidemic, the FDA placed a lifetime blood donation ban on all men who have ever had sex with men.

The policy was created to prevent blood banks from collecting blood that contains HIV. Since the AIDS crisis though, the US has instituted extensive procedures to test blood donations for infectious diseases, including HIV, to minimize this risk. It’s true that gay and bisexual men account for a large proportion of new HIV infections each year. It’s also true that tests to screen blood aren’t perfect. The risk of contracting HIV from a blood transfusion isn’t zero. But it is currently around 1 in 1.5 million.

The problem is that being gay isn’t the real risk factor here. Why should a monogamous gay man who has sex only with his husband be barred from donating blood when a heterosexual man who had condomless sex with 100 female partners in the past three months can? The latter is at dramatically greater risk of HIV infection.

In 2014, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) led more than 75 members of Congress in calling for an end to the ban, joining extensive lobbying from LGBTQ rights organizations in putting pressure on the administration for a change. In 2015, the Obama FDA reduced the lifetime ban to a 12-month ban on gay sex before donating.

Earlier this month, the FDA shortened the ban to three months of abstinence from sex with other men, due in large part to the drastic drop in blood donations since the start of the coronavirus pandemic. (Just prior, Baldwin and other senators, including Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, and Kamala Harris, submitted another letter to the FDA asking them to end the discriminatory policy entirely.)

The new FDA guidance is a good but insufficient step forward. It’s still going to leave out the vast majority of men who have sex with men. And it still promotes the internalized homophobia many gay men experience from growing up in a homophobic society: You can only be good and pure if you don’t have gay sex. This is psychologically damaging, unscientific, and wrong.

The rules need to change and be based on scientific behavioral risk factors. “Instead of a blanket ban on recent sex between men, we need to explore an approach that asks all donors about their recent behaviors, including condom use, number of partners, and use of preexposure prophylaxis, which we know is highly effective in preventing HIV,” explains Dr. Julia Marcus, an assistant professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School, where she studies the epidemiology of HIV. Such risk-based screening systems have been successfully implemented in Spain, Chile, Argentina, and South Africa. As written, the FDA rules aren’t supported by science. They simply discriminate against gay and bisexual men.

America desperately needs more blood donations, and lifting this ban could save lives

Plasma donations are critical. If the experimental treatment works, countless deaths from Covid-19 could be prevented. But in addition to plasma, the US also has a dire shortage of whole blood.

Due to social distancing, there have been 150,000 fewer blood donations since the pandemic began. More blood is leaving the blood banks than is coming in. This blood is desperately needed for trauma victims who are bleeding out, cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, and children with sickle cell disease, to name a few in-need groups.

Federal officials have been begging the public to donate blood. They should know that gay men like me are ready to roll up our sleeves and help.

America is in the midst of a public health crisis. Old homophobic policies are making it worse: leaving trauma victims without donor blood and withholding plasma donations that could potentially save people dying from the coronavirus. It’s time for the FDA to lift the ban and save lives. When they do, I’ll be the first in line.

Jack Turban MD (@jack_turban) is a resident physician in psychiatry at the Massachusetts General Hospital.


Support Vox’s explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

15 Apr 17:33

Your Stimulus Check May Be Delayed Because Trump Demanded His Name Be Printed on It

by Andy Towle
James.galbraith

Because the only thing that matters is him and corrupting the entire federal government is not a problem for the GOP

Trump gay power couple

Stimulus checks to millions of Americans have been delayed because Donald Trump demanded his name appear on them, even though he’s not legally authorized to sign them.

The NYT reports: “The decision to have Mr. Trump’s name on the checks, a break in protocol, was made by the Treasury Department after Mr. Trump suggested the idea to Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, according to a department official.”

The Washington Post reports: “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.”

An IRS quality control official said the change “will create a downstream snarl that will result in a delay” but Treasury Department officials disputed that claim.

The post Your Stimulus Check May Be Delayed Because Trump Demanded His Name Be Printed on It appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

15 Apr 17:29

[Josh Blackman] SCOTUS Drives a Stake Through The Heart of Rule 33.1

by Josh Blackman
James.galbraith

About fucking time. Welcome to 1977

[The Supreme Court should permanently exempt cert-stage briefs from the Byzantine printing and paper requirements of Rule 33.1]

The Supreme Court imposes a byzantine policy for submitting printed briefs. Rule 33.1. provides that almost all submissions must be printed on in a "6⅛- by 9¼-inch booklet. And not just any paper will do. The Court requires "opaque, unglazed, and not less than 60 pounds in weight." And the documents must use "saddle stitch or perfect binding." Plus "[e]very booklet-format document shall have a suitable cover consisting of 65-pound weight paper in the color indicated on the chart in subparagraph 1(g) of this Rule." There are thirteen separate colors. Make sure you don't confuse a light green cover (Amicus brief in support of Petitioner) from a dark green cover (Amicus brief in support of Respondent)  Oh, and you have to submit 40 copies of each booklet–enough for the Justices, the clerk, and court staff.

These rules are very expensive to comply with. Most printing companies charge several thousand dollars for a cert petition. And it is extremely difficult to print it on your own. If you make a mistake, it may be necessary to reprint the entire lot and start from scratch. Recently, the clerk's office gave me the option of putting a piece of white tape over a minor error, rather than reprinting the entire brief. I gladly accepted the option. (Kudos to the clerk's office for maintaining efficient operations during this difficult time).

Rule 33.1 may have made sense decades ago when word processing and desktop publishing was cost prohibitive. But today, these particular requirements merely create unneeded costs. And they limit access to justice for many litigants who can't afford to hire a printing firm.

Several of the Justices have indicated that they read briefs on their iPads. (Many circuit judges use iPads during oral arguments). I am fairly confident that law clerks are comfortable reading briefs on a screen. Rule 33.1 is a vestige of a long-ago time, and should be radically altered.

Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.

COVID-19 has brought another unexpected, but welcome change to the Court. Today, the Supreme Court put a stake through the heart of Rule 33.1. The brief order provides:

IT IS ORDERED that with respect to every document filed in a case prior to a ruling on a petition for a writ of certiorari or petition for an extraordinary writ, or a decision to set an appeal for argument, a single paper copy of the document, formatted on 8½ x 11 inch paper, may be filed. The document may be formatted under the standards set forth in Rule 33.2, or under the standards set forth in Rule 33.1 but printed on 8½ x 11 inch paper. The Court may later request that a document initially submitted on 8½ x 11 inch paper be submitted in booklet format.

Rule 33.2 is much, much easier to comply with. Litigants can use normal 8½ x 11 inch paper, of any weight. And there is no requirement to bind the document in booklet form. A staple in the "upper-left hand corner" works.

This policy should be the new normal. There is no reason to require litigants to jump through hoops to submit a cert petition that will almost certainly be denied. If cert is granted, funds are more likely to be available to cover the intricacies of Rule 33.1. But at the cert-stage, litigants should be able to quickly and easily file briefs using normal paper size. Rule 33.2 should be the norm. I hope this rule is maintained indefinitely.

Today's order also exempted certain filings from paper submission altogether:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following types of documents should not be filed in paper form if they are submitted through the Court's electronic filing system: (1) motions for an extension of time under Rule 30.4; (2) waivers of the right to respond to a petition under Rule 15.5; (3) blanket consents to the filing of amicus briefs under Rules 37.2(a) and 37.3(a); and (4) motions to delay distribution of a cert petition under the Court's Order of March 19, 2020.

The Supreme Court's electronic filing system is excellent–far better than CM/ECF, which the lower courts use. And it is free to the public. Kudos to the Court for developing this system. These changes should be permanent as well. No one will miss these antiquated rules.

On Monday, the Court announced that it would live-stream telephonic oral arguments. Bravo! I wrote an Op-Ed on this topic that was scheduled for Tuesday morning. I argued that the Court should set a special September sitting for the unargued cases. I did not think the Court would even consider telephonic arguments. Glad I was wrong. I hope this change persists for the future.

It will be difficult for the Court to go back to normal. I like the new normal.

15 Apr 17:19

Florida Gov. DeSantis declared WWE an “essential service.” His explanation doesn’t make much sense.

by Aaron Rupar
James.galbraith

Pretty clearly a gift to a donor, health consequences be damned

Gov. Ron DeSantis at a press conference on April 8. | Joe Raedle/Getty Images

“I think people have been starved for content ... we’re watching, like, reruns from the early 2000s.”

During a news conference on Tuesday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) was asked to explain a bizarre move: Classifying professional wrestling as an “essential service,” thereby allowing World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) to continue to broadcast live shows from a facility near Orlando, despite the state’s stay-at-home order. His answer didn’t inspire confidence that good public health reasons underpinned the decision.

“Obviously, WWE, there’s no crowd of anything, so it’s a very small amount of people,” DeSantis said, overlooking that WWE announced last week that one staffer recently tested positive for Covid-19, and that putting others in a position where they feel obligated to travel to and from work at the live shows is a risky proposition.

DeSantis went on to make a case that WWE shows will help people who are currently “starved for content.”

“I think people are chomping at the bit,” he said. “I mean, if you think about it, we’ve never had a period like this in modern American history where you’ve had such little new content, particularly in the sporting realm. I mean, people are watching, we’re watching, like, reruns from the early 2000s, watching Tom Brady do the Super Bowl then, which is neat because he’s gonna be in Tampa and I think they have a chance to win a Super Bowl this year. But I think people, to be able to have some light at the tunnel, see that things may get back on a better course — I think from just a psychological perspective I think is a good thing.”

With over 21,600 confirmed Covid-19 cases and more than 570 deaths as of April 15, Florida is currently one of the nation’s coronavirus hot spots. DeSantis, a former Congress member whose zealous support of President Donald Trump was a key part of his successful 2018 gubernatorial campaign, didn’t help matters by refusing to implement a stay-at-home order until the late date of April 2 — after the virus had already had an opportunity to spread among spring breakers who flocked to the state in March.

DeSantis’s comments about wanting to make his state a welcoming place for a variety of sporting events even amid a pandemic reflects his priorities. But his move in particular to classify WWE as “essential” has the whiff of the swamp Trump talked about draining during his 2016 campaign.

DeSantis helped the McMahons on the same day that a super PAC run by Linda McMahon announced it’s pouring money into Florida

WWE is run by Vince McMahon, husband of Linda McMahon, who served in Trump’s cabinet as his small-business administrator from 2017 until 2019, when she became chair of the pro-Trump super PAC America First Action. After weeks of broadcasting taped shows, Vince quickly took advantage of the DeSantis administration’s April 9 memo classifying his business as “essential” by resuming live broadcasts on Monday night. The plan is to continue with them going forward.

While WWE performers are reportedly unhappy with the change of plans, having the ability to do live shows could be important to the company’s bottom line. As wrestling journalist Dave Meltzer has detailed, WWE has lucrative television deals that require almost all of its shows be broadcast live. DeSantis’s classification of the company as an essential service allows McMahon to avoid jeopardizing those agreements.

In a statement about the resumption, WWE didn’t allude to any financial motives, but instead claimed “[w]e believe it is now more important than ever to provide people with a diversion from these hard times ... [a]s a brand that has been woven into the fabric of society, WWE and its Superstars bring families together and deliver a sense of hope, determination and perseverance.” But there’s no reason WWE couldn’t deliver this “sense of hope” with the same sort of taped shows they’ve been broadcasting for the better part of a month.

The big losers are WWE staffers, who instead of riding out the coronavirus pandemic at home are now faced with having to travel to the Orlando area for live shows on Monday, Wednesday, and/or Friday.

While it’s true the events are taking place in empty arenas, wrestling obviously requires physical contact — and WWE hasn’t been careful about observing social distancing. One staffer has already tested positive for the virus.

But DeSantis may have had reasons for classifying WWE as “essential” that go beyond content starvation. On April 9, the same day DeSantis’s administration classified Vince McMahon’s business as an essential service, Linda McMahon’s pro-Trump super PAC announced it’ll be spending $18.5 million on advertising in Florida.

“America First is making the Florida and North Carolina reservations because we are confident we can secure inventory at the best possible rates in these crucial battleground states,” a statement from the super PAC said. “We will make further decisions in May.”

“We have to get our sports back”

Orange County Mayor Jerry Demings told reporters that while wrestling wasn’t exempted from the state’s original stay-at-home requirement, the change was made following “some conversation with the governor’s office regarding the governor’s order.” Police officials have even said they tried to shut down WWE’s taped shows before the April 9 memo, because they ran afoul of the state’s stay-at-home order.

It’s possible there is no connection between DeSantis’s classifying WWE as essential and America First Action’s huge Florida ad buy — but if DeSantis has other good reasons to greenlight WWE’s broadcasts, he certainly didn’t provide them during Tuesday’s news conference.

Then again, as is often the case, DeSantis appears to be on the same wavelength as Trump. Hours after his news conference, Trump did one of his own in which he echoed the same sentiments.

“We have to get our sports back,” Trump said. “I’m tired of watching baseball games that are 14 years old.”

Trump also announced that Vince McMahon will be part of a large group of business leaders who will be advising him about how to relax social distancing measures and get the economy back up and running again as soon as possible. But thanks to DeSantis, McMahon may not be feeling as much urgency about that as he did a week ago.


Support Vox’s explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

15 Apr 17:17

Trump’s ugly new blame-shifting scam spotlights his own failures

by Greg Sargent
James.galbraith

Because he's an idiot

Trump's attacks on the WHO are profoundly absurd, and boomerang badly on his own record.
15 Apr 17:11

‘It Really Is the Perfect Storm’: Coronavirus Comes for Rural America

by Eric Scigliano
James.galbraith

But what about their superior "real america" values and personal responsibility? Nope, just more handouts.


Dr. Howard Leibrand has had two very different medical careers—29 years as an emergency room physician, then 12 as an addiction therapist. The challenge he’s facing now, as the novel coronavirus slams bucolic Skagit County, Washington, where he lives and works, is like both rolled into one. Covid-19 has struck fast and hard, like the car crashes and mishaps that send victims to the ER. And like opiate addiction, it has spread stealthily through the heartland, even as it was dismissed as a distant, urban problem.

“One of the negatives of living in a rural community is you think it protects you somehow,” says Leibrand, who for years has also been the health officer—a sort of local surgeon general—of the county, a sprawling expanse of rich alluvial farmland, exurban bedroom communities and steep Cascade peaks midway between Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia. “We get a little bit cavalier, a little lazy about social distancing.” On April 1, Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota—one of five states, all in the central heartland, without stay-at-home orders—defended her decision to leave South Dakotans “free to exercise their rights to work, to worship, and to play” by saying, “South Dakota is not New York City, and our sense of personal responsibility, our resiliency and our already sparse population density put us in a great position to manage this virus” without resorting to the “draconian” measures taken elsewhere.

Complacency is fast fading, however, as rural residents realize that, far from being immune, they may be uniquely vulnerable when the epidemic reaches them. Even as Noem spoke, Covid-19 was spreading at a Sioux Falls meatpacking plant that subsequently closed after more than 300 workers fell sick, and local officials across the state begged her to issue shutdown and shelter-in-place orders.

As of press time, all but one of Washington’s 39 counties, most of them rural, had reported Covid-19 cases. Nationwide, more than two-thirds of rural counties had confirmed cases as of April 6, a New York Times analysis found, and across rural America, the per capita infection rate “was more than double what it was six days earlier.” That’s as fast as or faster than recent increases in Chicago, Miami, Boston, Los Angeles and New York.The country’s highest Covid-19 rate is in Blaine County, Idaho, home to 22,277 residents and the Sun Mountain ski resort.

Most rural infection rates still fall far short of Blaine County’s, and of the rates in cities like Seattle and New York where the pandemic first hit. But rural doctors and emergency managers watch the wave of contagion rippling out across the country and figure it’s just a matter of time—and not much time—before it hits them hard, too.

They’re also afraid their communities aren’t ready to face a pandemic—and acutely aware of the handicaps they bear as this one arrives. Rural residents tend to be older, less affluent and less healthy than the national average, and fewer of them have health insurance. Long distances to hospitals and labs can spell the difference between life and death with an unpredictable disease that can rapidly turn critical. Rural grocery stores, pharmacies and even hospitals are last in line for supplies that chains and big box stores have special access to.

Most worrisome of all, many of the rural hospitals that are the first line of defense as coronavirus goes country were already on the critical list. An average of a dozen a year have folded over the past decade, and many more were on the brink when Covid-19 arrived. Before, if a local disaster or disease outbreak overwhelmed their resources, they could turn to neighbors and big-city medical centers for relief. Now, they find themselves competing, at a disadvantage, with their larger counterparts for scarce test kits and protective gear.

Skagit County, which with 187 cases and six deaths has one of Washington’s highest Covid-19 rates, is used to disasters; crippling floods periodically inundate its flatlands and river towns. But “floods and other disasters are immediate,” says Bryan Brice, fire chief in the county’s largest town and incident commander for its Covid-19 response. “With this pandemic, three people get sick, I treat those three and four more are. You treat those four and have five or six more. …. A flood or other disaster is localized. When you have a flood in Skagit County, there’s no flood in Vancouver so you can turn there for help. But this is everywhere.”


Rural areas, sparsely populated though they are, are more vulnerable to coronavirus than you might think, says Carrie Henning-Smith, a professor of health policy at the University of Minnesota who studies rural communities. Many in the outsize rural elderly population depend on children and other family caregivers who must also work at jobs outside the home. Unlike city-based finance, software and media jobs that readily move online, rural jobs tend to be in industries, many of them designated “essential,” that require showing up and working at close quarters: agriculture, manufacturing, fishing, mining, retail, tourism and recreation. Even before Covid-19 hit, Henning-Smith’s research found that “rural caregivers were dramatically less likely to be able to work at home” than their urban counterparts. “And they had less access to sick leave and time off.” All this makes it harder for them to safely distance themselves and protect their families.

Those in more remote areas may also have limited access to information, leaving them exposed to dangerous disinformation. In 2016, the Federal Communications Commission found that 39 percent of rural residents, versus just 10 percent of the general population, lacked access to 25 mps broadband; 200,000 in Washington, by another estimate, were shut out. In such a vacuum, “radio—farm radio, talk radio—becomes really important,” Henning-Smith says. And listening, like social media, has its risks: “They might be getting really bad information. People can think this is a hoax, that it won’t affect them.”

Until it does.


South Bend, Washington, population 1,637, is the picturesque seat of Pacific County, at the state’s southwest corner. Until March 13, the local buzz was that the coronavirus threat was “being hyped up to make Trump look bad,” longtime resident Jan Davis says. “That flipped around as soon as Trump declared an emergency. The next day [Pioneer Grocery, South Bend’s only food store] was cleared out. It still is. There’s still no toilet paper, baking stuff, rice, beans, or ice cream,” though produce and meat are readily available, Davis says. “It’s a terrible situation. What are poor people [who can’t afford to stock up] going to buy?”

“It’s frustrating,” says Rick Manlow, who owns and operates Pioneer Grocery with his brother. “We run right out of toilet paper and flour, and of course hand sanitizer and wipes the very few times we’re able to get hold of them. You throw them on the shelf and they’re gone in 10 minutes.” His bare shelves don’t just reflect panic buying, however. “We’re ordering 800 cases and getting 400. Our supplier is operating at way over capacity. They’ve been having challenges getting adequate staff, supply, even drivers for the trucks.” (The large chains by contrast purchase directly from manufacturers and have their own warehouses and truck fleets, so they’re protected from such problems at the wholesale level.)

Other small towns are in the same fix, says Jan Gee, president of the Washington Food Industry Association, which represents independent grocers and the wholesalers that supply them. “I’m getting repeated reports like this from our members,” Gee says. “It appears the large manufacturers are favoring the chains and big box stores.”

Independent pharmacies, which fill a vital role in towns too small to attract the chains, face similar disruptions. “We cannot get hydroxychloroquine, face masks, hand sanitizer, isopropryl alcohol, 70 percent ethanol or wipes,” says Rob Slagel, who operates the only nontribal pharmacy in Ferry County, Washington’s most remote district; big box stores lie more than an hour away over mountain passes. “We’re allocated two Z-paks”—an antibiotic to treat the pneumonia that often follows Covid-19—“a day.”

Slagel is now retiring, and the county hospital is buying him out so the 4,000 people it serves won’t be left without a pharmacy. The hospital, which has already treated one Covid-19 patient, also finds itself at the tail end of the supply chain. It ordered a ventilator last fall because those it had were outdated; CEO Aaron Edwards says the manufacturer finally sent one, the wrong model, in January. When Edwards tried to exchange it, after the coronavirus appeared, he says the manufacturer told him the one he’d ordered had been allocated to the Federal Emergency Management Agency instead.

When even entire states are bidding against each other for ventilators and personal protective equipment, tiny hospitals can be at a particular disadvantage, says Jacqueline Barton True, the Washington Hospital Association’s vice president for rural health programs: “When they go to buy 11,000 masks, the supplier says, ‘I have an order for a quarter million. I don’t have time for you.’”

Many rural hospitals were in dire financial straits even before the virus appeared. Buffeted by rural flight, rising costs, state budget cuts and restricted Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, more than 170 nationwide have closed since 2005, 128 of them since 2010 and eight since January. Most were in the South and lower Midwest, particularly in states that did not expand Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act; Texas lost 24, Tennessee 13, and Alabama 7. (Those are also states with high shares of uninsured rural residents.) Some hospitals are now reopening to deal with Covid-19. Washington state will take over one that closed in January in Yakima, a major agricultural hub, and reopen it for coronavirus care.

Many more rural hospitals in Washington are tottering and hoping this crisis doesn’t overturn them. A state-ordered moratorium on elective surgeries and other nonurgent procedures has choked off their largest source of revenue; many deferred them to conserve precious supplies even before the order came down. ER visits and the income they bring have also plummeted. Insurers pay less for the telemedicine that has replaced traditional office visits. These losses affect all hospitals, but urban ones, with their efficiencies of scale, are better insulated, with bigger cash buffers and more in-patient and critical-care treatment, which continues despite the moratorium.

The quickest way to rebalance hospitals’ books would be to do what so many businesses have done: trim staff. But the hospitals are loath to do that in the face of a pandemic, though many have been sending hourly workers home at reduced pay and letting salaried employees take unpaid days off. “You’re doing crisis prevention,” says Shane McGuire, CEO of the Columbia County Health System, the only hospital in nearly 1,000 sparsely inhabited square miles of southeastern Washington. “You need to keep your staff. So you have a high cost of operation and low revenues. It really is the perfect storm.”

Rural hospitals across the state have seen their revenues fall by a third to more than half since the emergency began. “We’re essentially equivalent to grounded airlines,” says Rod Hochman, CEO of Providence Washington, a nonprofit network of urban and rural hospitals, one of which treated America’s first Covid-19 patient. “We’ve grounded the economic activity that sustains the rural hospitals.”

As part of a large network, Providence’s hospitals enjoy access to resources, supply chains and lobbying clout that their independent and county-operated counterparts can only dream of. “We see our rural hospitals as mission-critical,” Hochman says. “What I’m worried about are those who aren’t connected, who don’t have support” from a network like Providence.

That would include Three Rivers Hospital in Brewster, which serves 15,000 residents spread across 5,000 square miles of central Washington scrub and prairie. Three Rivers went from running a small surplus in December to six-figure deficits in the ensuing months. “We’d been positioning to grow in 2020,” says Jennifer Best, its business development director. “Then we got blindsided.” Now Three Rivers is one of five rural hospitals the Washington State Hospital Association warned faced “imminent closure” in a March 20 letter to Governor Jay Inslee pleading for state relief. They have less than two weeks’ cash on hand, says the association’s Barton True; 15 more have less than 45 days’.

All those hospitals are still hanging on, with a little help. The state kicked over $2 million in emergency funds—about $140,000 for each eligible hospital, enough to keep the doors open for a week or two. Because of the lag in insurance reimbursements, they’re still receiving payments for procedures performed in the halcyon days of January and February. And they’re anxiously peering through the murk of the federal coronavirus response to discern what share they will receive of the $100 billion designated for hospitals and other care providers in the $2 trillion coronavirus relief package signed into law March 27. Clarity is slow in coming.

That act also authorizes Medicare to send hospitals three months of “accelerated payments” (six months for small, rural critical access hospitals) based on what they billed last year. These are not grants, however, but loans against future earnings. Some rural hospitals are grabbing for this lifeline. Others view it warily, fearful of incurring debts they can’t repay.

Providence’s Hochman sees another source of emergency funds for hard-pressed hospitals: “Private insurers have cash sitting in the banks—essentially all the elective surgery they would pay for isn’t happening.” Why not advance that cash to hard-pressed hospitals? he asks. “We’re pushing on that.”

He offers one more blunt piece of political advice: “Very quickly, rural hospitals have to figure out who their friends are.”


A sizable share of rural Washington lies within its 29 Native reservations, which cover 6 million acres spread around all but the state’s southeast quadrant. Covid-19 could hit Indian Country especially hard. The tribes have limited medical resources; none have their own hospitals, and some don’t have clinics. That’s one reason many have started early and worked hard to keep the coronavirus out of their communities, or contained once it’s in.

A little south of the Canadian border, the Lummi Nation, with 20 confirmed Covid-19 cases, has installed a 21-bed care center next to its clinic to absorb any overflow from the nearest hospital, in Bellingham. Thinking ahead, the Lummi stocked up on medical and safety supplies in January and declared an emergency on March 3, 10 days before President Donald Trump did. The smaller Suquamish Tribe, which lacked a clinic, is now building one.

“We have a population with adverse underlying conditions,” says T. J. Greene, chairman of the Makah Tribe. “Nationwide, Native populations have higher rates of diabetes and heart disease.” He figures that between elders and those with compromised health, a sixth of the 1,800 residents would be especially vulnerable if the virus reaches the isolated Makah reservation at the state’s westernmost point.

It hasn’t, as far as anyone knows. To keep it that way, the Makah have installed a 24-hour checkpoint on the only road into their village, excluded visitors, closed their popular (and spectacular) oceanfront hiking trails to outsiders, and urged residents to leave only for emergencies.

The tribes along more densely inhabited Puget Sound, especially those with intermingled “checkerboard” territories, don’t have the option—another big source of concern. The Tulalip Tribes abut the blue-collar town of Marysville in Snohomish County, where America’s first Covid-19 case appeared. They have 10 active cases, with two more suspected and 12 test results pending, but until a few days ago were able to obtain only 50 test kits at a time. Thanks to the community grapevine, “we’d hear if a native person got sick,” Chairwoman Teri Gobin says. “But most people living on the reservation are nonnative. On most reservations, we don’t know who’s sick [among nonmembers] unless they self-report.”

Thirty miles up the Sound, the smaller Swinomish Tribe has seen just one Covid-19 case, in a young nontribal resident. The Swinomish could follow the Makahs’ lead and close the bridge connecting their reservation to the mainland, but that would compound the disruption the epidemic has already brought. “We’ve talked about it, but not yet,” tribal Vice Chairman Joseph Williams says. “We don’t have a grocery store, so we’d have to get all that stuff delivered. And over half the population is nonnative”­—and, presumably, more likely to resist.

The tribes have taken a heavier economic hit than other communities, even as they struggle to get emergency funds and medical supplies from the federal government. Local cities and counties, which have ongoing tax revenues, have retained all or most of their employees. With limited taxing authority, most tribes depend on their casinos and hotels, which closed in early or mid-March. “We’ve furloughed 95 percent of our gaming staff and 85 to 90 percent of government staff,” Gobin says. The Makah depend on fishing rather than chips, but with the restaurants and processors who buy their catches shut down, their boats sit as idle as the casinos to the east.

Unemployment and forced isolation fray the social fabric. “We’d had a pretty good stretch since we opened our wellness center,” Williams says. “We didn’t have any overdoses for a couple years. Since then, we’ve seen extra drug problems. We’re seeing a rise in alcohol and marijuana sales” at nearby stores.

Down at Tulalip, Gobin hasn’t seen a rise in alcohol problems or domestic abuse, but the local cannabis shop “spiked to its highest sales ever.” What saddens her is the way cherished traditions must yield to public safety. “Our funerals are not one or two days,” she says. “We’re there for the family all week.” When a beloved elder died of Covid-19, “we could not do that. The family couldn’t be there at the cemetery when they put her in the ground. They had to do it with the nurse putting them on FaceTime.

“I can’t imagine burying my mother without being there.”

15 Apr 17:09

Four Years Ago, Mike Pence Hated Presidential Overreach

by Adam Wren
James.galbraith

He's another hack using religion and ideology to dupe the morons.


Vice President Mike Pence looked uncomfortable. President Donald Trump had just announced his power was “total,” that the president has “the ultimate authority” over the states at Monday’s White House coronavirus task force briefing. Pence was asked whether he agreed. The vice president shifted uncomfortably, looked straight ahead and dutifully delivered his talking points.

“Make no mistake about it,” a stone-faced Pence replied. “In the long history of this country, the authority of this country, the authority of the president of the United States during national emergencies is unquestionably plenary.”

There’s a governor who spent his time in office arguing exactly the opposite: that the states had the right to refuse Washington’s dictates, that state autonomy was a constitutional bulwark against overarching presidential power. His name was Mike Pence.

For his entire previous political career, six terms in Congress and four years as governor, Pence vociferously dug in, in deeply principled terms, against what he saw as overreach from the White House and Washington. In defending Trump’s claims of absolute power, Pence bucked a career-long ideological commitment to federalism—one he ardently espoused in speeches, op-eds and interviews with journalists.

Pence built an entire abandoned 2016 presidential campaign around the theme of a “vision of renewed federalism.” In 2014, he lectured then-President Barack Obama on an Evansville tarmac about Medicaid expansion. He promised that Indiana wouldn’t comply with Obama’s Clean Power Plan. He even turned down an $80 million federal grant for preschool for 2,000 children, claiming it would result in “federal intrusion.” For decades, Pence was guided by the 10th Amendment, which reserves for the states power that is not explicitly granted to the federal government by the Constitution, and he saw a robust role for states as proverbial laboratories of democracy.

“If the republic is to survive, we must have a revival of federalism and state-based constitutionalism,” he wrote in a 2011 Washington Times op-ed.

“Federalism explains a great deal of American exceptionalism and the extraordinary progress of economic growth and influence of our nation over the past 200 years,” Pence said in a June 2014 speech to the Federalist Society in Indianapolis. I believe that reinvigorating federalism in this country is essential to restoring the fortunes of our nation.”

Given this record, Pence’s remarks on Monday arched the eyebrows of some longtime observers.


“The president is all but the king? This is the best example I’ve seen of the vice president getting away from his philosophy,” John Gregg, who mounted Democratic gubernatorial bids against Pence in 2012 and 2016, told me Tuesday. “It just makes me wonder, what kind of hold does the president have on some of these people.” Gregg, whom Pence hand-selected to take over one of his two radio shows after his election to Congress, told me he is reluctant to criticize his friend and former political opponent, but this instance seemed beyond the pale. “My differences with Mike Pence are political—not personal,” he told me.

As a congressman, Pence bristled at sweeping George W. Bush-era federal initiatives such as No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D.

As governor, Pence changed Indiana’s Office of Federal Grants and Procurements to the Office of State Based Initiatives, arguing that “Indiana must take the lead in pushing back against federal mandates.” He opposed federal programs such as the controversial Obama-era K-12 educational standards known as the Common Core and Medicaid expansion. On the former, he ensured that Indiana was the first state to withdraw; on the latter, he requested a tarmac meeting with Obama, pressing him on the issue. He opted for a Medicaid waiver and extended the Healthy Indiana Plan 2.0, Indiana’s state-run alternative featuring health savings accounts (a plan designed by Seema Verma, now chief of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services).

“What happened to the guy that fought for the Medicaid waiver?” Tom LoBianco, the vice president’s biographer, asked me. “He fought for two years on that.”

“The trouble and the challenge for Pence has always been trying to match his theology and strict message discipline to wherever Trump is moving at any given moment,” Lobianco said. “I don’t think he’s tossing federalism out the door. I think the president is changing his tune and he’s trying to keep with that tune. It creates an incredible amount of discord if you look back at his own record.”

Though Pence’s remarks on Monday acknowledged absolute presidential power specifically in national emergencies, others have swiftly disagreed with that. Republican Rep. Liz Cheney tweeted Monday: “The federal government does not have absolute power,” before quoting the 10th Amendment. (The post had generated nearly 9,000 retweets as of Tuesday.) Legal scholars have pointed to Supreme Court decisions overruling sweeping presidential actions during national emergencies, saying presidential power is never “total” or “plenary,” not even in war.

For Pence, this contortion is another in a long line of them, spanning everything from free trade to immigration reform. “The vice president jumped right on the Trump train,” Gregg told me. “He realizes that the president brought him to dance.”

“He’s supremely political,” Lobianco says. “It’s the central finding of the book. He’s not an ideologue. By definition, if politics factor in above ideology, you’re not an ideologue.”

On Monday, politics trumped Pence’s long-held ideology.

In 2014, as he gamed out a 2016 presidential bid, Pence spoke to the Federalist Society in Indianapolis, sprinkling “federalism” throughout his speech no fewer than 10 times. He recalled a conversation with Ed Meese, Reagan’s former attorney general. The two swapped stories about Reagan’s 1982 speech on federalism to Indiana’s General Assembly.

Federalism, he told the room, was “Reagan’s unfinished work.”

Now, it may be Pence’s unfinished work, too.

15 Apr 17:08

California prepares for socially distant schools in the fall

by Mackenzie Mays
James.galbraith

What a shitshow


SACRAMENTO — Reopening schools was the last thing on California education leaders' minds — until Tuesday.

With the state increasingly confident about its ability to control the spread of the coronavirus, Gov. Gavin Newsom said that conversations are underway about how schools could reopen in a "physically constrained" way after this school year.

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.

"What physically do those schools look like? Can you stagger the times that our students come in so you can appropriate yourself differently within the existing physical environment by reducing physical contact?" Newsom said as he unveiled benchmarks for the gradual reopening of the state on Tuesday.

For school districts that have scrambled to provide distance learning and tackled challenges such as special education in a social distancing era, the governor's comments alerted them to the potential for another pandemic-fueled problem that had not yet been on their radar: opening schools while adhering to social distancing policies.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond told POLITICO that he saw Newsom's comments as "a sign of optimism" but said reopening schools has not been a priority for the California Department of Education. The department has hosted weekly webinars for teachers and is trying to acquire devices and internet access for thousands of students to accommodate learning while the state continues its stay-at-home orders.

"Today was really the first that we heard the good news that we should be thinking about when we return to campuses, and that is good news," Thurmond said. "But to be frank, our focus heretofore has been only on getting through this school year, making distance learning effective and beginning to really think hard about the summer as an opportunity to address learning loss."

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."

Tim Taylor, executive director of the Small School Districts' Association, said different districts will attempt different paths, including possibly having students take turns with days of instruction. Some could be physically present while others continue distance learning to avoid large groups.

"Parents are going to be very vocal about this. You're going to see different models because some parents are going to want to come back to school and some will want to play it safe," Taylor said. "It's good to start these conversations now because the community is going to let you know what they think."

Keith Brown, president of the Oakland Education Association, said Tuesday's press conference amplified the union's fight with Oakland Unified over school closures that are planned to cope with budget problems.

"Districts would really need to be strategic about the use of space. We need to make sure that we're able to have enough classroom space to ensure that there's proper social distancing, which sounds like something we need to practice for a long time," Brown said. “It's very important we have these conversations sooner than later about how schools will look when we return, and teachers unions must be in that conversation. "

Newsom said Tuesday that he plans to work with the state's teacher unions in the coming months to devise possible scenarios for returning to classrooms.

California Teachers Association spokesperson Claudia Briggs pointed to a statewide framework headed by Newsom and Thurmond that aimed to help districts and unions work out details of distance learning. She said she expects to see that same collaboration here.

"Like Gov. Newsom, we want to bring our students and educators back to a safe environment," Briggs said. "No one knows exactly what that will truly look like."

California Federation of Teachers President Jeff Freitas said while school leaders were caught off guard by Newsom's comments, the governor was not issuing a concrete plan but throwing out ideas "like spaghetti on a wall to see, does it stick or not."

Newsom did not mandate that schools close either, instead leaning on local control and "social pressure." All but one school in the state has closed.

"There's a long way to go before we get there and a lot of conversations to be had about what's doable," Freitas said. "The next biggest thing is: what are going to be the resources that schools are going to be given? We have to continue funding our education system and we know it's going to be a tight budget because of the coronavirus."

15 Apr 17:01

Joe Biden racks up another big endorsement: Elizabeth Warren

by Emily Stewart
Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Vice President Joe Biden on the Democratic debate stage in January 2020. | Scott Olson/Getty Images

Warren announced she’s backing Biden days after Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama did the same.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has endorsed Joe Biden for president, marking a third day of high-profile endorsements for the former vice president, after Sen. Bernie Sanders and former President Barack Obama did the same earlier this week.

In a video message posted on Twitter Wednesday morning, Warren, a former 2020 presidential contender herself, said that Biden will “lead a government that works for the American people.”

“Joe Biden has spent nearly his entire life in public service. He knows that a government run with integrity, competence, and heart will save lives and save livelihoods,” she said. “And we can’t afford to let Donald Trump continue to endanger the lives and livelihoods of ever American. And that’s why I’m proud to endorse Joe Biden as president of the United States.”

In the video, Warren cites Biden’s response to the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 and his involvement in the recovery from the financial crisis and the Great Recession as examples of his leadership during crises. She also spoke of working with him in setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — something the pair clashed over during one of the Democratic primary debates last year.

Warren and Biden have not always been on the same side of the issues. Beyond being rivals in the 2020 Democratic primary, the two were at odds over a 2005 bankruptcy bill Biden supported while he was a United States senator. As Vox’s Matt Yglesias explained, Warren opposed it so vehemently that it’s part of what got her into politics. During the primary, however, Biden backed Warren’s bankruptcy proposal in an apparent effort to make amends. In her endorsement video, Warren nodded to this — and to her disagreements with Biden.

“Among all the other candidates I competed with in the Democratic primary, there’s no one I’ve agreed with 100 percent of the time over the years,” she said. “But one thing I appreciate about Joe Biden is that he will always tell you where he stands. When you disagree, he’ll listen — and not just listen, but really hear you, and treat you with respect no matter where you’re coming from.”

It’s been a big week in endorsements for Biden. On Monday, Sen. Sanders endorsed him in a joint livestream with the two men, telling him “we need you in the White House” and pledging to do “all that I can to make that happen.” And on Tuesday, former President Obama, who has been reluctant to speak out too much during the primary, backed his former running mate as well.

“Joe has the character and the experience to guide us through one of our darkest times and heal us through a long recovery,” Obama said. “Joe was there as we rebuilt from the Great Recession and rescued the American auto industry. He was the one asking what every policy would do for the middle class and everyone striving to get into the middle class.”

Warren suspended her presidential bid in March and quickly came under pressure from both the Sanders and Biden camps to endorse one of the remaining candidates. She held out until Wednesday. The former vice president now has the backing of all of his major former rivals.


Support Vox’s explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

15 Apr 03:36

Democrats tread carefully with Trump amid fears of retaliation

by Marianne LeVine, Burgess Everett and Sarah Ferris
James.galbraith

Because Trump is a child


Sen. Dick Durbin was out for a bike ride on a recent Sunday at a park in his hometown of Springfield, Ill., when his phone rang.

It was Vice President Mike Pence.

“I pulled my bike over to the curb and talked to him about everything under the sun, from the whole question of beds and medical equipment and then on down the line,” the Senate minority whip recalled. “I found him to be constructive and positive in our communications.”

Durbin's account notably did not center on the series of serious missteps that most Democrats see in President Donald Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

“The state comes first,” Durbin said. “And if being a tough cop gets it done, fine. If being a nice cop gets it done, fine. I will take any approach I can use effectively to help our state.”

Congressional Democrats have spent four years berating Trump as unhinged and unprepared for a crisis. But now, they must work with the White House to save lives in their states — a reality that could spare Trump from some of their harshest attacks.


Some Democrats say they fear any criticism lobbed at the Trump administration could come with retribution that has real costs. The dilemma facing lawmakers also comes as the 2020 elections approach, when Trump will seek to oust Democrats from office and their job performance amid the crisis will be judged.

There’s perhaps no better example of someone facing this conflict than Sen. Doug Jones, the Alabama Democrat who has become the GOP’s top target in the Senate this November.

Jones is panning the White House’s approach to letting states largely secure their own medical gear. We're "suffering from what I call the ‘Lord of the Flies,’ or the ‘Hunger Games’ — whatever the hell you want to call it — where we’re competing against other states and we’re competing against hospitals,” he said.

But Jones, who is eager to help his constituents, also emphasized that he is working to find common ground with the Trump administration and is “open to discussions with anybody.”

Meanwhile, vulnerable GOP incumbents like Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado and Martha McSally of Arizona have seen Trump intervene on their behalf to get supplies to their states.

It was a little harder for Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), whom Trump tried desperately to oust in 2018.

During a call with Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Peter Gaynor and other officials, Tester said he was told Montana would receive 80,000 N95 masks from the national stockpile. Instead, he said, the state received less than 11,000 masks. So Tester brought it up with Pence, on a call with Senate Democrats.

“Guess what? They showed up,” Tester said in an interview. “[FEMA] didn’t respond, but the vice president did. … The bigger issue here is that if this happened in Montana, it’s probably happening all over the place.”

Tester sent a thank you note to Pence.

A spokesperson for FEMA said the first shipment for personal protective equipment to Montana included 22,600 surgical masks and was delivered March 20. The spokesperson said the state will also soon receive two more shipments, one with 22,600 masks and another with 143,000 masks.


Even as many Democrats move cautiously, they have panned the White House for failing to deliver crucial supplies in their home states and districts. They’ve criticized the Trump administration for failing to fully invoke the Defense Production Act amid a shortage of medical equipment. And they’ve lashed out when Trump removed the watchdog in charge of overseeing trillions in coronavirus funds.

Some Democrats have even claimed that the Trump administration has been delaying or withholding much-needed medical supplies to their states — charges the White House denies.

In a letter to Pence this month, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote that “there remains a serious and damaging perception” that medical supplies and personal protective equipment aren’t being distributed based on threat, “but rather based on political or personal motives.” He pointed out that Connecticut — a solidly blue state — had received only 14 percent of its request for protective gear and noted news reports that Florida, whose governor speaks to Trump on a regular basis, received the supplies it requested.

Murphy has also tried to reach out to White House adviser Peter Navarro, but was instead directed to a Department of Defense official.

“The only meaningful thing the administration is doing is holding daily press conferences,” Murphy said in an interview. “The only federal response has been from Congress. … I think it’s absolutely stunning how little the administration has done and how little they are willing to do.”

"People are fearful that they are going to be retaliated against if they ask tough questions about what’s happening and what’s not happening and how we can make progress. That’s a problem,” added Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.).

Pence's call with Senate and House Democrats last week also left some members dissatisfied and prompted House Democrats to send a follow-up letter Monday.

The White House did not comment for this story, but Republicans defended the administration’s handling of the crisis.

“When you look at the fact that we continue to lower the estimate of the number of people who will lose their lives, the response has been very successful,” said Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, a member of GOP leadership. “The fact that we’ve from gone 1.5 [million] to 2 million projected deaths to less than 100,000 is a direct result of the response of the administration and the American people.”

Some Democrats warn that their party needs to be aware of the tone of any message right now.


“If we disagree with somebody, we’ve got to do it in a very careful way,” Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, a conservative Democrat who is close to the Trump administration, said in an interview. “You’ve got to be careful you don't attack the president in a certain way, because the public is going to say, ‘Hey what are you doing, you’re supposed to be working together.’”

Democrats have turned in recent days to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin amid frustration with Trump. For instance, Mnuchin spoke with Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) about the disbursement of funds to his state. And Mnuchin is once again serving as the point man for negotiations with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on the terms of the next relief package that will be at least a quarter trillion dollars.

Those talks between Mnuchin and Pelosi have partly substituted for the lack of communication between Pelosi and the president, who haven’t spoken directly since October. Pelosi is now ripping Trump's "failures to adequately plan for an outbreak on U.S. shores."

Other top Democrats are also unflinching in their criticism: House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) called Trump’s response to the crisis an “unmitigated disaster.” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) warned that Trump might try to use the relief money to “reward his own businesses.”

And there is a heightened sense of concern among some Democrats in the hardest-hit regions who don’t trust Trump not to play politics with the response in their states.

“It’s certainly something that we all think about,” said Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), who has watched Trump spar with his home state Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer, amid rising caseloads of coronavirus.

“His instincts have always been about how any decision reflects on himself, and not whether it's the right decision,” Kildee said. “But we genuinely want him to succeed, because him succeeding is saving American lives.”

15 Apr 03:12

[Josh Blackman] Florida Judge Offers Advice for Zoom Hearings: Dress Appropriately

by Josh Blackman
James.galbraith

It's time to chill out about anachronistic dress codes

["It is remarkable how many ATTORNEYS appear inappropriately on camera."]

Judge Dennis Bailey, who sits on the board of the Weston Bar Association, offered advice to attorneys appearing on zoom: dress appropriately.

One comment that needs sharing and that is the judges would appreciate it if the lawyers and their clients keep in mind these Zoom hearings are just that: hearings. They are not casual phone conversations. It is remarkable how many ATTORNEYS appear inappropriately on camera. We've seen many lawyers in casual shirts and blouses, with no concern for ill-grooming, in bedrooms with the master bed in the background, etc. One male lawyer appeared shirtless and one female attorney appeared still in bed, still under the covers. And putting on a beach cover-up won't cover up you're poolside in a bathing suit. So, please, if you don't mind, let's treat court hearings as court hearings, whether Zooming or not.

Students would be well-served to follow this advice as well.

 

15 Apr 03:10

Collins reaps the reward of embracing Trump—an approval rating as bad as his

by Joan McCarter
James.galbraith

good riddance

Into each horrible day of quarantine and bad news, we need to make sure at least a little light shines. Today it's the news that Sen. Susan Collins is about as popular as Donald Trump back home in Maine. Which is not particularly popular. The Bangor Daily News reports on Critical Insight's state polling for March, showing Collin's big plummet.

Collins' approval rating among Mainers is just 37%, with 52% disapproving. That makes for just 11% of people not having an opinion, which is not very good for her seven months out from reelection. Further cause for her brow to be furrowing right now is that she's lost 5 points in the same poll since it was conducted last fall. Trump, by the way, gets 36% approval. Ouch.

Let's make sure her time is up. Please give $1 to help Democrats in each of these crucial Senate races, but especially the one in Maine!

This makes Collins the only member of Congress from Maine who's underwater with voters. Her colleague Sen. Angus King, an independent, has a 59% approval rating, while Reps. Chellie Pingree and Jared Golden, both Democrats, are above-water with constituents; 51-19 for Pingree and 42-19 for the freshman Golden.

Like all Americans, Mainers are primary concerned with COVID-19, with 53% ranking it as the most important political issue for the state. They are overwhelmingly supportive of the state's response to the crisis over Trump's—74 to 44.

Collins' decision to fully embrace Trump is looking better and better for Maine and the nation all the time.

15 Apr 01:00

Obama Endorses Joe Biden for President: VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT

by Andy Towle
Obama endorses Biden

Former President Barack Obama on Tuesday endorsed his former vice president Joe Biden for president in 2020.

Said Obama in a 12-minute message that addressed coronavirus and Bernie Sanders: “Choosing Joe to be my vice president was one of the best decisions I ever made, and he became a close friend.”

Obama added that Biden would “surround himself with good people… who actually know how to run the government.”

Of Bernie, Obama said: “Bernie’s an American original, a man who has devoted his life to giving voice to working people’s hopes, dreams and frustrations. He and I haven’t always agreed on everything, but we’ve always shared a conviction that we have to make America a fairer, more just, more equitable society.”

Brad Parscale, Trump 2020 campaign manager responded to Obama’s endorsement:

“Barack Obama spent much of the last five years urging Joe Biden not to run for president out of fear that he would embarrass himself. Now that Biden is the only candidate left in the Democrat field, Obama has no other choice but to support him.  Even Bernie Sanders beat him to it. Obama was right in the first place: Biden is a bad candidate who will embarrass himself and his party. President Trump will destroy him.”

Obama’s full endorsement:

Hi everybody. Let me start by saying the obvious – these aren’t normal times. As we all manage our way through a pandemic unlike anything we’ve seen in a century, Michelle and I hope that you and your families are safe and well. If you’ve lost somebody to this virus, or if someone in your life is sick, or if you’re one of the millions suffering economic hardship, please know that you’re in our prayers. Please know that you’re not alone. Because now’s the time for all of us to help where we can and to be there for each other, as neighbors, as coworkers, and as fellow citizens.

In fact, over the past weeks, we’ve seen plenty of examples of the kind of courage, kindness, and selflessness that we’re going to need to get through one of the most difficult times in our history. Michelle and I have been amazed at the incredible bravery of our medical professionals who are putting their lives on the line to save others. The public servants and health officials battling this disease. The workers taking risks every day to keep our economy running. And everyone who’s making their own sacrifice at home with their families, all for the greater good.

But if there’s one thing we’ve learned as a country from moments of great crisis, it’s that the spirit of looking out for one another can’t be restricted to our homes, or our workplaces, or our neighborhoods, or our houses of worship. It also has to be reflected in our national government. The kind of leadership that’s guided by knowledge and experience; honesty and humility; empathy and grace – that kind of leadership doesn’t just belong in our state capitols and mayors offices. It belongs in the White House.

And that’s why I’m so proud to endorse Joe Biden for President of the United States.

Choosing Joe to be my Vice President was one of the best decisions I ever made, and he became a close friend. And I believe Joe has all the qualities we need in a President right now.

He’s someone whose own life has taught him how to persevere; how to bounce back when you’ve been knocked down.

When Joe talks with parents who’ve lost their jobs, we hear the son of a man who once knew the pain of having to tell his children that he’d lost his.

When Joe talks about opportunity for our kids, we hear the young father who took the train home each night so he could tuck his children into bed – and we hear the influence of Jill, a life-long teacher.

When Joe talks to families who’ve lost a hero, we hear another parent of an American veteran; a kindred spirit; somebody whose faith has endured the hardest loss there is.

That’s Joe. Through all his trials, he’s never once forgotten the values or the moral fiber that his parents passed on to him, and that made him who he is. That’s what steels his faith – in God, in America, and in all of us.

That steel made him an incredible partner when I needed one the most.

Joe was there as we rebuilt from the Great Recession and rescued the American auto industry. He was the one asking what every policy would do for the middle class and everyone striving to get into the middle class. That’s why I asked him to implement the Recovery Act, which saved millions of jobs and got people back on their feet – because Joe gets stuff done.

Joe helped me manage H1N1 and prevent the Ebola epidemic from becoming the type of pandemic we’re seeing now. He helped me restore America’s standing and leadership in the world on the other threats of our time, like nuclear proliferation and climate change.

Joe has the character and the experience to guide us through one of our darkest times and heal us through a long recovery. And I know he’ll surround himself with good people – experts, scientists, military officials who actually know how to run the government and care about doing a good job running the government, and know how to work with our allies, and who will always put the American people’s interests above their own.

Now Joe will be a better candidate for having run the gauntlet of primaries and caucuses alongside one of the most impressive Democratic fields ever. Each of our candidates were talented and decent, with a track record of accomplishment, smart ideas, and serious visions for the future.

And that’s certainly true of the candidate who made it farther than any other – Bernie Sanders. Bernie’s an American original – a man who has devoted his life to giving voice to working people’s hopes, dreams, and frustrations. He and I haven’t always agreed on everything, but we’ve always shared a conviction that we have to make America a fairer, more just, more equitable society. We both know that nothing is more powerful than millions of voices calling for change. And the ideas he’s championed; the energy and enthusiasm he inspired, especially in young people, will be critical in moving America in a direction of progress and hope.

Because for the second time in twelve years, we’ll have the incredible task of rebuilding our economy. And to meet the moment, the Democratic Party will have to be bold.

You know, I could not be prouder of the incredible progress that we made together during my presidency. But if I were running today, I wouldn’t run the same race or have the same platform as I did in 2008. The world is different; there’s too much unfinished business for us to just look backwards. We have to look to the future. Bernie understands that. And Joe understands that. It’s one of the reasons that Joe already has what is the most progressive platform of any major party nominee in history. Because even before the pandemic turned the world upside down, it was already clear that we needed real structural change.

The vast inequalities created by the new economy are easier to see now, but they existed long before this pandemic hit. Health professionals, teachers, delivery drivers, grocery clerks, cleaners, the people who truly make our economy run – they’ve always been essential. And for years, too many of the people who do the essential work of this country have been underpaid, financially stressed, and given too little support. And that applies to the next generation of Americans – young people graduating into unprecedented unemployment. They’re going to need economic policies that give them faith in the future and give them relief from crushing student loan debt.

So we need to do more than just tinker around the edges with tax credits or underfunded programs. We have to go further to give everybody a great education, a lasting career, and a stable retirement.

We have to protect the gains we made with the Affordable Care Act, but it’s also time to go further. We should make plans affordable for everyone, provide everyone with a public option, expand Medicare, and finish the job so that health care isn’t just a right, but a reality for everybody.

We have to return the U.S. to the Paris Agreement, and lead the world in reducing the pollution that causes climate change. But science tells us we have to go much further – that it’s time for us to accelerate progress on bold new green initiatives that make our economy a clean energy innovator, save us money, and secure our children’s future.

Of course, Democrats may not always agree on every detail of the best way to bring about each and every one of these changes. But we do agree that they’re needed. And that only happens if we win this election.

Because one thing everybody has learned by now is that the Republicans occupying the White House and running the U.S. Senate are not interested in progress. They’re interested in power. They’ve shown themselves willing to kick millions off their health insurance and eliminate preexisting condition protections for millions more, even in the middle of this public health crisis, even as they’re willing to spend a trillion dollars on tax cuts for the wealthy. They’ve given polluters unlimited power to poison our air and our water, and denied the science of climate change just as they denied the science of pandemics. Repeatedly, they’ve disregarded American principles of rule of law, and voting rights, and transparency – basic norms that previous administrations observed regardless of party. Principles that are the bedrock of our democracy.

So our country’s future hangs on this election. And it won’t be easy. The other side has a massive war chest. The other side has a propaganda network with little regard for the truth. On the other hand, pandemics have a way of cutting through a lot of noise and spin to remind us of what is real, and what is important. This crisis has reminded us that government matters. It’s reminded us that good government matters. That facts and science matter. That the rule of law matters. That having leaders who are informed, and honest, and seek to bring people together rather than drive them apart – those kind of leaders matter.

In other words, elections matter. Right now, we need Americans of goodwill to unite in a great awakening against a politics that too often has been characterized by corruption, carelessness, self-dealing, disinformation, ignorance, and just plain meanness. And to change that, we need Americans of all political stripes to get involved in our politics and our public life like never before.

For those of us who believe in building a more just, more generous, more democratic America where everybody has a fair shot at opportunity. For those of us who believe in a government that cares about the many, and not just the few. For those of us who love this country and are willing to do our part to make sure it lives up to its highest ideals – now’s the time to fight for what we believe in.

So join us. Join Joe. Go to JoeBiden.com right now. Make a plan for how you are going to get involved. Keep taking care of yourself, and your families, and each other. Keep believing in the possibilities of a better world. And I will see you on the campaign trail as soon as I can.

Thanks.

The post Obama Endorses Joe Biden for President: VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

15 Apr 00:53

Needs more Zendaya: We have our first look at the new Dune film

by Jennifer Ouellette
James.galbraith

Here's to hoping :)

Screenshot from upcoming film Dune.

Enlarge / Timothée Chalamet as Paul Atreides in this first look at Denis Villeneuve's film adaptation of Frank Herbert's Dune. (credit: Chiabella James/Warner Bros.)

We have been eagerly anticipating director Denis Villeneuve's film adaptation of Frank Herbert's classic sci-fi novel Dune since the project was first announced way back in 2016. Now Vanity Fair has given us our first look at the film, including several photos of some of the main characters. Timothée Chalamet as Paul Atreides? Oscar Isaac as Duke Leto Atreides? Jason Momoa as Duncan Idaho? Zendaya as the mysterious Chani? They're all featured, along with a few other key cast members.

As we reported last year, Dune is set in the distant future and follows the fortunes of various noble houses in what amounts to a feudal interstellar society. Much of the action takes place on the planet Arrakis, where the economy is driven largely by a rare life-extending drug called melange ("the spice") that also conveys a kind of prescience. There's faster-than-light space travel, a prophecy concerning a messianic figure, giant sandworms, and lots of battles, as protagonist Paul Atreides (a duke's son) contends with rival House Harkonnen and strives to defeat the forces of Shaddam IV, emperor of the known universe.

That brief synopsis hardly does justice to the sweeping grandeur and enormous cultural influence of Herbert's novel. When it was first published, the Chicago Tribune called it "one of the monuments of modern science fiction." Astronomers have used the names of many fictional planets in Dune to identify various topographical features on Saturn's moon Titan. Herbert wrote five sequels, and the franchise also includes board games, computer games, and numerous prequels and sequels written by his son, Brian Herbert, with Kevin J. Anderson.

Read 10 remaining paragraphs | Comments