#HOW DOES VOTING WORK WHEN PERFORMANCES ARE ON MONDAY AND RESULTS ARE TUESDAY BUT I WATCH NEXT DAY ON PEACOCK???

[amtrak12]

Compulsively refreshing The Voice's youtube page every 15 minutes because I want to know which performance they chose to tease Monday's ep/want to know if it's Maddi Jane's performance (again) (for the third time)

[fremedon]

That Time the Entire Medical School Marched Very Politely on the Palais-Royal

So, in the course of researching fic, I came across this last night: La Faculté de Médecine de Paris Après Juillet 1830, an 1878 monograph by A. Corlieu, assistant librarian at the medical school. It is a slim 15-page volume specifically about changes to the medical school administration as a result of the July Revolution—48 years after the fact but still within living memory, and by someone who had access to all the primary sources.

I have not made it through the whole thing yet and I’m not sure I’m going to; the bulk of it is not super relevant to the story I’m working on and my French reading is very slow and heavily reliant on google translate. BUT. I read enough last night to find out about a truly BONKERS incident that I cannot fit into my fic but that someone needs to write about. Several someones. There needs to be a whole genre of fic about That Time the Entire Medical School Marched Very Politely on the Palais-Royal.

SO. The medical school, which normally would have been in session until August 31, closes its doors on Wednesday, July 28. This is the second of the Trois Glorieuses, the Three Glorious Days of the July Revolution. (This tracks; there was fighting on the 27, but mostly on the Right Bank, and most of the barricades went up that night.) It stays closed, as far as I can tell, for the rest of that week and all of the next—much of the city was shut down, between the fighting, the rebuilding, and the unexpected regime change, and of course many medical school professors also held hospital or clinical positions and would likely have been busy dealing with wounded.

The medical students, meanwhile, are on the barricades--enough of them to be a significant contributing factor in Charles’ overthrow and a matter of immediate political concern.

How immediate? On the first Monday after the Trois Glorieuses, August 2, the medical school faculty meets to discuss the needs of the school, which also apparently include regime change because on August 4, Louis-Philippe appoints a new dean.

He does this as Lieutenant General of the realm. He is NOT YET KING. Charles X only abdicated Monday night, and then only in favor of his grandson, though the Orléanists left that part out of their announcements Tuesday morning. Louis-Philippe is still very much in the process of consolidating power, and that, it seems, requires placating the medical faculty.

And the students. Because on Friday, August 6—THE DAY THE REVISED CHARTER OF GOVERNMENT IS PRESENTED TO THE CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES—Louis-Philippe announces he is presenting four crosses of the Legion d’Honneur to the medical students, with the recipients to be chosen by a vote of the student body.

Louis-Philippe is STILL NOT KING. He is handing out decorations to the medical students while the details of the Charter—the constitution under which he is going to take the throne—are being hammered out. There is still enough republican (and Bonapartist, and just anti-monarchist or anti-Bourbon) sentiment in the streets that when the revised charter is unveiled Lafayette has to come out for the second time in two weeks to talk down the crowd. And the medical students are a significant enough republican force that trying to coopt them is on L-P’s agenda for that same day.

But does it work, you ask?

WELL. On Monday, August 10, at noon, the whole student body meets, in a conclave led by the dean and three professors, to vote on which of their number get the crosses. And they—unanimously—reject them. The professors suggest accepting them collectively and having them displayed in the lobby of the college; they reject that as well, insisting that "a national duty performed in common does not merit individual reward."

But, sensitive to the honor that they are rejecting, they decide they should at least pay a visit of gratitude to thank Louis-Philippe for the gesture. And so the entire assembled student body—1800 students—pours out of the auditorium into the street, in a column four abreast with the dean at their head.

A column four abreast is not walking, it is marching. The monograph says the dean was leading them, but honestly that sounds more like a hostage situation to me.

They cross the river, arrive at the Palais-Royal, and request an audience.

They get it. It is August 10. Louis-Philippe was crowned the evening of the 9th. He has been king for LESS THAN 24 HOURS and he already has an organized column of almost 2000 fervently republican young men who aren’t scared by blood at his doors.

And…not much happens. They exchange some very polite words.

The Dean: Sire, the students of the Paris Medical School, united by the love of order and freedom, come to express to you through my voice their unanimous resolution not to accept individual distinctions for a duty which all have fulfilled and for which they got the best reward. Deign to allow, Sire, that they present at the same time to Your Majesty the homage of their gratitude, their devotion, and their deep respect.

The King: Messieurs, I appreciate your generous approach and the expression of feelings so worthy of French youth. I was only able to offer four crosses; I would have liked to give one to all, convinced that all had equally well deserved it of the country in these grave circumstances; all the youth have shown a heroism and devotion on which I am happy to be able to rely.

...and then they turn around and go home. But the students are in a position of unprecedented power and they do manage to use it; they’re clearly relaying their actual demands to someone in the regime, because not even two weeks later, on August 23, the new minister for public education announces a whole slate of reforms to the medical school, starting with the reinstatement of a bunch of professors who had been sacked by Louis XVIII in 1823—before most of the current students would even have started—for insufficient loyalty to the regime. The new ministry also rolls back some disciplinary measures aimed at suppressing political activity, makes the admission requirements less stringent (that one would be reversed within a few years), establishes five new professorial chairs in various subjects, and makes various other student-focused changes like extending library hours.

Recall that summer vacation starts September 1. The ministry pushes this announcement out a whole week before the end of term—presumably, at least in part, out of worry over how the students might escalate when they had even more free time and no immediate responsibilities.

I cannot—I deeply regret—fit this incident into my current WIP. But I REQUIRE ALL the Les Mis fic about Combeferre and Joly and the Visit of Thanks To Louis-Philippe. Please go make that happen.

[patriotsnet]

Did Republicans Shut Down The Government

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/did-republicans-shut-down-the-government/

Did Republicans Shut Down The Government

Shutdown 10: November 10 To 14 1983

Obama: GOP Shut Down Government Because “They Didn’t Like One Law”

President: Ronald Reagan

Senate: Republicans , Majority Leader Howard Baker

House: Democrats , Speaker Tip ONeill

Why: A variety of issues this time: House Democrats wanted more education funding, more aid for Israel and Egypt, less aid to Syria and El Salvador, and less defense spending than Reagan did. The two parties reached a compromise in which the MX missile was funded, and Democrats got a lot less money for education and secured their defense and foreign cuts, along with a ban on oil and gas drilling on federal animal refuges.

Us Faces Risk Of Government Shutdown As Trump Balks At Covid

Andy SullivanSteve Holland

WASHINGTON, Dec 23 – Americanson Wednesday faced the prospect of a government shutdown during a pandemic as outgoing President Donald Trump, angry at his fellow Republicans in Congress, threatened not to sign a $2.3 trillion government funding and coronavirus aid package.

The package, including $892 billion for relief from the coronavirus crisis, ended months of negotiations between congressional Republicans and Democrats.

It also pays for government operations through September 2021, so if Trump blocks it then large parts of the U.S. government will start to shut down next week for lack of funds.

Trump, in a video posted to social media on Tuesday evening, surprised some of his closest officials by demanding the bill be revised to include $2,000 payments to each American, more than triple the $600 per person included in it.

A source familiar with the situation said aides thought they had talked Trump out of the $2,000 demand last week, only to learn he had not given up when he posted the video. That surprised even his Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, who took part in the talks and backed the $600 figure.

Trump was irked when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in Congress, last week acknowledged Democrat Joe Biden’s defeat of Trump in their November election contest, another source said. Biden is due to take office on Jan. 20.

DEMOCRATS SAY READY

McCarthy’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Watch Trump Pelosi Schumer Clash Over Border Wall Funding

After Trump invited reporters to sit in for a testy exchange at his first meeting in more than a year with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday, the Democrats teed him up to shoulder the credit or the blame if the money runs out and the government is forced to close down.

Pelosi, a California Democrat who is expected to become House speaker in January, referred in the meeting to a partial government closure as the “Trump shutdown.”

Schumer, a New York Democrat, told Trump “you want to shut it down. You keep talking about it.”

Trump took the bait.

“If we don’t get what we want, one way or the other … I will shut down the government. Absolutely,” he said. “I am proud to shut down the government for border security.”

Later, Trump told reporters that he was happy to take responsibility for a partial pause in government operations. It was “Chuck’s problem” when the government briefly shut down early in the year, Trump said.

“It was his idea, and he got killed,” Trump said, either unaware or unconcerned that he was putting himself in the same position as Schumer was in less than a year ago. “He doesn’t want to own it.”

“I’ll take it,” Trump added. “I will take it because we’re closing it down for border security, and I think I win that every single time.”

But there’s reason for Republicans who care about the broader public perception of the party’s ability to govern and to expand its base to worry about his tactics.

Shutdown 14: December 18 To 20 1987

President: Ronald Reagan

Senate: Democrats , Majority Leader Robert Byrd

House: Democrats , Speaker Jim Wright

Why: Congressional Democrats were resisting further funding for the Contras in Nicaragua, and insisted on reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, a Federal Communications Commission rule that had recently been abandoned, which required broadcasters to show balanced perspectives on political issues. Democrats lost on the Fairness Doctrine, and agreed to nonlethal aid to the Contras.

List Of Federal Shutdowns

This list includes only major funding gaps which led to actual employee furloughs within federal departments of the US government. It does not include funding gaps that did not involve shutdowns of government departments, in which examples include: a brief funding gap in 1982, in which nonessential workers were told to report to work but to cancel meetings and not perform their ordinary duties; a three-day funding gap in November 1983 that did not disrupt government services; and a 9-hour funding gap in February 2018 that did not disrupt government services.

The 1980 shutdown was the first time a federal agency shut down due to a budget dispute, with around 1,600 federal workers for the FTC being furloughed as a result, and Federal Marshals deployed to some FTC facilities to enforce their closure. The shutdown ended after one day when Carter threatened to close down the entire US government if Congress did not pass spending bills by 1 October later that year, with economists of the time estimating that the 1-day shutdown of the FTC cost the government around $700,000, the majority of which was towards back pay for the furloughed workers. In the aftermath of the shutdown, Civiletti issued a revised edition of his original opinion on 18 January 1981, detailing that shutdowns would still require agencies that protect human safety or property to continue operating if funding for them expired.

1981, 1984, and 1986

Shutdown 7: November 20 To 23 1981

President: Ronald Reagan

Senate: Republicans , Majority Leader Howard Baker

House: Democrats , Speaker Tip ONeill

Why: This was the first shutdown, in the current sense of the term, when federal government functions were seriously curtailed. Reagan furloughed 241,000 federal workers, the first time a funding gap had led to so severe a reduction in the federal governments operations. Reagan had demanded $8.4 billion in domestic spending cuts and promised to veto any bill that didnt include at least half of that amount in cuts. The Senate was willing to comply, but the House insisted on bigger defense cuts and on pay increases for itself and the civil service.

The two branches reached a deal that fell $2 billion short of Reagans threshold, so he vetoed the deal and shut down the government. The shutdown ended quickly after Congress passed a continuing resolution for a little less than a month, giving them time to negotiate.

Empathy For Federal Workers

Walden is the only Republican in Congress from Oregon, representing a district that Trump won by 19 percentage points. Although his bid for a 12th term wasn’t close, his 57 percent win was his smallest general election victory.

Walden led the campaign arm of House Republicans in the 2014 and 2016 elections and votes with Republicans more than 90 percent of the time. But as the new Congress convened last week, Walden said he looked forward “to reaching across the aisle to find bipartisan solutions.”

Of his votes to reopen parts of the government, Walden said he has empathy for federal workers and their families caught up in the impasse.

“We know not many people can afford to miss a paycheck,” Walden said.

Contributing: Eliza Collins.

Congress Races To Avoid Government Shutdown Amid Pandemic As Funding Expires

Parties face first major test of ability to cooperate since election, with funding to run out on 11 December

The US Congress on Monday began a two-week sprint to rescue the federal government from a possible shutdown amid the coronavirus pandemic, the first major test since the election of whether Republicans and Democrats intend to cooperate.

Government funding for nearly all federal agencies expires on Saturday 11 December.

Congressional negotiators have made progress on how to divvy up around $1.4tn to be spent by 30 September 2021, the end of the current fiscal year, according to a House of Representatives Democratic aide.

But more granular details are still unresolved and votes by the full House and Senate on a huge funding bill may come close to bumping up against that 11 December deadline.

Still unclear is whether Donald Trump, who was defeated in the 3 November election, will cooperate with the effort.

If the post-election lame duck session of Congress fails to produce a budget deal, the new Congress convening in January would have to clean up the mess just weeks before the inauguration of Joe Biden.

Trump has already warned that he would veto a wide-ranging defense authorization bill Congress aims to pass if a provision is included stripping Confederate leaders names from military bases.

Most Americans Call Shutdown ’embarrassing’ As It’s Set To Become Longest In History

GOP: Time to Shut Down the Government!

Shutdowns had been a rare thing in U.S. history. The first one came just over 40 years ago, 200 years after the country’s founding. But since that time, the fisticuffs of divided government and spending disputes have become fairly commonplace if not usually this lengthy.

First shutdown was in 1976

The first partial shutdown came under President Gerald Ford in 1976 when he vetoed a spending bill amid a dispute over the budget for the Department of Health, Education & Welfare .

A whole slew of them followed over the next two decades. There were five during Jimmy Carter’s four years in office, and eight between 1981 and 1989 during Ronald Reagan’s administration.

National Parks And Capital Museums

As with the January 2018 shutdown, national parks were expected to be open to the extent practical, though there would be no staff and buildings would be closed. The shutdown affected national parks unevenly, some were accessible with bare-bones staffing levels, some operated with money from states or charitable groups, and others were locked off. Diane Regas, president and chief executive of the Trust for Public Land, called upon Trump to close all national parks to protect the public: by the third week of the shutdown, three people had died in national parks. This number was reported as being within ‘usual’ levels. At Yosemite National Park, on January 4, 2019, a death from a fall went unreported for a week.

Closures or limited access

Government Shutdowns In The United States

Jump to navigationJump to search

Government shutdowns in the United States occur when there is a failure to pass funding legislation to finance the government for its next fiscal year or a temporary funding measure. Ever since a 1980 interpretation of the 1884 Antideficiency Act, a “lapse of appropriation” due to a political impasse on proposed appropriation bills requires that the US federal government curtail agency activities and services, close down non-essential operations, furlough non-essential workers, and only retain essential employees in departments covering the safety of human life or protection of property. Voluntary services may only be accepted when required for the safety of life or property. Shutdowns can also occur within and disrupt state, territorial, and local levels of government.

This article is part of a series on the

Since the enactment of the US government’s current budget and appropriations process in 1976, there have been a total of 22 funding gaps in the federal budget, ten of which have led to federal employees being furloughed. Prior to 1980, funding gaps did not lead to government shutdowns, until Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a legal opinion requiring the government to be shut down when a funding gap occurs. This opinion was not consistently adhered to through the 1980s, but since 1990 all funding gaps lasting longer than a few hours have led to a shutdown.

Willing To Take Party To Task

Stefanik quickly became a rising star in the Republican Party when, at age 30, she became the then-youngest woman ever elected to Congress.

In November, Stefanik was re-elected to a third term in her upstate New York district with 56 percent of the vote, after including a shot of Trump campaigning with her in one of her campaign ads. She was also in charge ofrecruiting candidates for House Republicans for last year’s midterms. But after the election, Stefanik took her party to task for not doing enough to help elect women and minorities.

Stefanik said she’s backed bills to fund shuttered government agencies because “I oppose government shutdowns and in Congress have consistently voted to keep the government open.”

Food Stamps Inspections And School Lunches

During the shutdown, 95% of federal staff for the USDA‘s Food and Nutrition Services were furloughed. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program , the food-stamp program, could be funded through a $3 billion contingency fund appropriated by Congress in 2018; if the shutdown had continued through March 2019, those funds would have been exhausted, leaving some 38 million Americans without food stamps and endangering food security. Concerns were raised that continuation of the shutdown could delay the issuance of some $140 billion in tax refunds from the Internal Revenue Service .

School administrations raised concern about how to feed children who purchase food at the schools for lunch, as funding concerns caused some districts to conserve food and funding. Many limited the amount or variation of foods available for the children to purchase, and alerted parents to the concerns and the limited availability of some of the items. Most schools affected were in high-poverty areas, and depended on federally funded lunch programs, such as the Community Eligibility Provision a federal grant established by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 and operated through the Department of Agriculture. Some 22 million students in nearly 100,000 schools received school meals through that operation.

United States Federal Government Shutdown

This article is part of a series on the

The United States federal governmentshutdown from midnight on December 22, 2018, until January 25, 2019 was the longest U.S. government shutdown in history and the second and final federal government shutdown involving furloughs during the presidency of Donald Trump. It occurred when the 116th United States Congress and President Donald Trump could not agree on an appropriations bill to fund the operations of the federal government for the 2019 fiscal year, or a temporary continuing resolution that would extend the deadline for passing a bill. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal departments or agencies from conducting non-essential operations without appropriations legislation in place. As a result, nine executive departments with around 800,000 employees had to shut down partially or in full, affecting about one-fourth of government activities and causing employees to be furloughed or required to work without being paid. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the shutdown cost the American economy at least $11 billion , excluding indirect costs that were difficult to quantify.

On February 15, 2019, Trump declared a national emergency in order to fund the wall and bypass the United States Congress, after being unsatisfied with a bipartisan border bill that had passed the House of Representatives and the Senate a day before.

A Brief History Of The 2013 Government Shutdown

The 2019 governmentshutdown — the longest shutdownin US history — has rendered hundreds of thousands of federal workers without paychecks and affected dozens of federal agencies. Here’s a. When the government shut down from October 1, 2013 and the American people deserve better than a government that lurches from crisis to crisis caused by a handful of people. American. Acadia Park In Maine Shut Down – ‘We’ve been training for two years at CrossFit for this hike no kidding, Hart said. She added that the shutdown should be as inconvenient for the Washington politicians who caused it as it is for average citizens.’ The GOP have agreed to fund the parks. Obama said he will veto. 16 VA regional offices shut down Oct 08, 2013 Oct 08, 2013 The Department of Veterans Affairs has announced it is placing more than 7,000 employees on furlough, effective Oct. 8 – a move that will eliminate public access to all 56 of its Veterans Benefits Administration regional offices

Why Did The Government Shutdown In 2013

Federal workers demonstrate against the government shutdown in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on October 4, 2013. The government shut down for the first time in 17 years on October.

10/02/2013 07:31 PM EDT. Updated 10/03/2013 02:45 PM EDT. 2013-10-03T02:45-0400. Share on Facebook Share on Twitter. But as the government shutdown heads into day three,.

I mean, this whole notion that we’re going to shut down the government to get rid of Obamacare in 2013this plan never had a chance. The Abortion Shutdown Duration: 12 days, beginning Sept.

The United States federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 1995-96 were the result of conflicts between Democratic President Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress over funding for education, the environment, and public health in the 1996 federal budget.The shutdowns lasted from November 14 through November 19, 1995, and from December 16, 1995, to January 6, 1996, for 5 and 21 days.

If Congress doesn’t reach an agreement over government funding, shutdown is October 1 2011 had three major debates that nearly shut down the government But the 2011 fiscal battles only tell half.

Government shutdown begins: Congress fails to agree on spending bill. By Rebecca Kaplan, Stephanie Condon October 1, 2013 / 12:25 PM / CBS New

imum wage, or universal health carethe country would be.

A Fourth Trump Wall Shutdown Loomed

Update: Republicans Shut Down Government, Accomplish Nothing

On March 11, 2019, President Trump sent Congress a $4.7 trillion spending proposal for the governments 2020 budget that included another $8.6 billion for U.S.-Mexico border wall construction. Bringing the threat of a fourth government shutdown of the Trump presidency, Democratic lawmakers immediately vowed to block further border wall funding.

In a joint statement, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer reminded the president of the widespread chaos that had hurt millions of Americans during the 34-day border wall shutdown from December 22, 2018, to January 24, 2019. The same thing will repeat itself if he tries this again. We hope he learned his lesson, wrote Pelosi and Schumer. By law, Congress had until October 1, 2019, to approve the 2020 budget. 

Democrats Think Thats Totally Overreaching In This Case So Its A Non

Abortion coverage restrictions already exist in Medicaid and in federal programs under the auspices of the Hyde Amendment. Now anti-abortion legislators and organizations are trying to prevent abortion reimbursement under Obamacare for low-income folks. https://t.co/dUbXH4oliU

NNAF Abortion Funds December 20, 2017

The issue is a non-starter for Republicans, too. It needs to have Hyde, said Rep. Chris Smith, who is also a co-chairman of the bipartisan Pro-Life Caucus. In the Senate, since they made a promise to Collins, the bill could pass. But the House is a whole other ballgame. Rep. Mark Walker, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, which is the largest group of conservative activists in the House, told Reuters that Collins agreement means squat over

Lovely, right? Its even trickier, according to Ohio Rep. Tim Cole, since Republicans dont want to be doing anything at all to make it look like theyre keeping the ACA on life support. The abortion thing just makes it worse for them. Cole thinks it comes down to Speaker Paul Ryan. I think listens to his members, and I think he got a lot of pushback on that today, Cole told The Hill. Theres no stronger pro-life person than Paul Ryan. Thats never coming through here without Hyde language in it.

Thank you for standing firm on the Hyde Amendment! Republicans must add Hyde to any new market stabilization subsidies. #HydeSavesLives#prolifehttps://t.co/Fex7ymzJwo

FRC December 19, 2017

Republicans Start Bracing For Shutdown Fight In Run

Senate Republicans are growing concerned that rising tensions between President TrumpNancy PelosiOn The Money Eviction ruling puts new pressure on Congress Overnight Energy & Environment Presented by the American Petroleum Institute Feds target illegal gas practicesPelosi backs bill to expedite rental aid after eviction rulingMORE could lead to a shutdown fight just weeks before the election and threaten their slim majority in the chamber. 

There is widespread anxiety among GOP senators that Trumps penchant for picking fights is a political liability as his response to nationwide protests against police brutality appears to be the cause of his declining approval ratings.

Republicans are now worried that hes likely to pick a fight with Pelosi in September over government funding for the next fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1.

Trump and Pelosis relationship has only gotten worse since the 35-day government shutdown at the end of 2018 and beginning of 2019. The president regularly refers to her as “Crazy Nancy,” and last month Pelosi called him “morbidly obese.”

GOP lawmakers say the last thing they need a few weeks before the Nov. 3 election is a spending standoff and possible government shutdown, especially with 23 Republican Senate seats up for reelection and only 12 Democratic seats at stake.

Some moderate Democrats, however, have expressed support in the past for legislation to prevent future shutdowns.

Shutdown 11: September 30 To October 3 1984

President: Ronald Reagan

Senate: Republicans , Majority Leader Howard Baker

House: Democrats , Speaker Tip ONeill

Why: Reagan wanted a crime bill; House Democrats wanted water projects and a law reversing a recent Supreme Court decision allowing exemptions from Title IX of the Civil Rights Act for colleges that didnt get federal funding directly but whose students did. Reagan didnt like the latter two provisions, and a three-day spending extension was passed to give more time to negotiate after the funding gap.

Republicans’ 2010 Congressional Victory

The tensions that would ultimately produce the 2013 shutdown began to take shape after Republicans, strengthened by the emergence of the Tea Party, won back a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives from the Democrats in 2010. Even at that time, some conservative activists and Tea Party-affiliated politicians were already calling on congressional Republicans to be willing to shut down the government in order to force congressional Democrats and the President to agree to deep cuts in spending and to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which had been signed into law only a few months earlier. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, a Republican who had presided over Congress during the last government shutdowns 15 years earlier, said in April 2010 that if Republicans won back control of Congress in the 2010 election, they should remove any funding for the Affordable Care Act in any appropriations bills they passed. Gingrich said Republicans needed to “be ready to stand on principle” and should refuse to fund the new healthcare law even if their refusal would result in a shutdown of the government.

Agreement Temporarily Reopens Government

In at least a temporary solution, President Trump, on January 25, announced that he had struck a deal with Democratic leaders in Congress to allow the government to reopen until February 15 without including funding for the construction of any additional border barrier. Negotiations of border wall funding were to continue during the three-week period.

The President stressed that a border wall remained a necessity for national security and that if Congress did not agree to fund it by the February 15 deadline, he either reinstate the government shutdown or declare a national emergency allowing existing funds to be used for the purpose.

[tommyoboe]

YEAR 3 - WEEK 28. Hi. So this week has been er, yeah, interesting. Monday morning saw me running about like a headless chicken attempting and failing to get things done. I set up my oboe for a run through of my recital programme after my morning class and then realised I needed to scrape the reed down for ease of playing, only to apparently misplace my plaque to aid me in this. So I proceeded to turn into a purple aubergine as I hammered out my twenty five minutes of music, and then after more tiring searching (with lots of f***s), I of course found it inside my cigarette paper (yes, we oboists have some interesting material) and gave a massive sigh of relief. Over a bit of plastic. And then after a mad dash to the library next door, I spent ages trying to print off some music (that I didn’t actually end up needing), for that afternoon’s CBSO Scheme to get no results after the computer forbidding me to print the many pages (bloody robots taking over everything). But of course, things did turn around and I had a great afternoon with the CBSO and Ed Gardner watching them rehearse Strauss’ Death and Transfiguration, a beautiful piece with lush harmonies and textures (and a lack of places to breathe for the winds!). I particularly enjoyed the conductor’s ‘soft’ faces and his attention to detail, picking out details that were certainly unseen by myself. Waking up really tired on Tuesday was not fun at all; after an uncomfortable night’s sleep I did not feel ready for my Musicianship exam. But as we began the exam I felt confident with what was set out in front of me and had faith that I would do very well. However, after a couple of unclear questions, my thought process became foggy and the rest of the paper was considerably harder. Ah well, I’ve just got to hope the first half saw me through. Either way, the debriefing that evening was much needed, despite me spending too much on drinks and chorizo flavoured crisps (they were dank though - yes that means good). My confidence in playing does continue to grow these days, which I’m really living for at the moment. I’ve had quite a few consistently good lessons now, which compared to just last year is really great. I also enjoyed playing to Jo Patton, clarinettist in the CBSO, on Wednesday; her energy and ability to bring music to life was something that I thrived off and really believed in. She also remembered that I was on Scheme, which was nice! Pops orchestra came to a wonderful close this week, with two schools concerts and an evening performance on Friday, as we entertained with favourites from Bernstein and Williams (Star Wars was obvious for May 4th), as well as Copland, Spiderman and Prokofiev’s classic Peter and the Wolf. Getting recorded for Classic FM was daunting but exciting with how the concerts went overall, and being able to give kids an outreach in music was very sweet (the actions for Copland’s Hoe Down were a particular highlight - we all got into them A LOT). The wine afterwards was also excellent; I took the bottle and glass home with me. Does that mean I’m a thief... Nah, it was for a good enough cause: my sanity. And I saved money on glasses! From film music to gospel on Sunday, as gospel choir made its debut at the Cheltenham Jazz Festival. It was a cute little gig in the sunshine (it’s finally here) with the eight of us providing something different and perhaps more lighthearted, hopefully lifting people’s spirits in the process. Looking forward to Lincoln this weekend! Other highlights this week have included voting myself for the first time on Thursday, clearly a first timer when I didn’t realise there was a voting booth and just asked for the nearest pen. That felt good though; I definitely felt like I was doing a good thing by actively contributing to politics - an area we shouldn’t shy away from and freely talk about. God, I hate people muting my right to talk when it comes to politics (or just anything to be honest). More delightful things entailed a cute afternoon with Cameron shopping for my recital outfit (having tried it on, I can say without being arrogant that I’m gonna look fiiiiiine) and grabbing a late dinner at this sweet little bakery (we wanted everything and it was aesthetic goals), as well as an evening pub trip where we got free curry, pastries and cake with strawberries, but on the flip side did have to endure what sounded like cats literally being strangled as part of the pub’s open mic night. There were also lots of laughs to be had in the last woodwind workshop of the year, a chamber concert featuring none other than Shirley Basset and the Basset Babes (basset horn thing, don’t ask), and as I laughed and cringed, but you know, mostly laughed, I took pleasure in knowing I go to a good place where people can work hard but can also have fun and relax, and for this level I really value that. Getting some shocking and kind of upsetting news yesterday has put me back a bit in how I generally feel, but as I took things in I realised I could be strong about it, especially going into recital week, and it emphasised that I have come a long way in learning to control my emotions and let things happen if they are meant to, which this is, and for that I feel content overall. Also, after watching a particularly moving episode of Netflix’s The Crown this evening (definitely recommend) I have been once more reminded to be grateful for everything I have, and to know that things that may appear bad at first will often turn out to be much better than first thought. So a mixed week overall, but now being in the final week of assessments, it really is now time to make a fucking fantastic summer for myself. Well, off I go. T

[ericvick]

Walsh: Metropolis ready for predicted file turnout at polls tomorrow

A lot more than a 3rd of Bostonians have presently solid their ballots forward of tomorrow’s state and presidential election as metropolis officials get ready for in-particular person voting on Tuesday amid amplified security actions.

Shut to 159,000 voters have turned in their decisions, bringing the early turnout to 36.5 p.c of all registered voters,” Mayor Walsh explained through a Monday morning press convention at Town Corridor.

“Four a long time ago, our in general turnout was 66.75 %, so it appears like we will at least fulfill if not shatter that record tomorrow,” he mentioned. “We are committed to making confident that voting is risk-free and accessible. It’s the cornerstone of our democracy and the suitable to self-determination that we believe in. We’re doing regardless of what it will take to safeguard our legal rights and harmless obtain to ballot containers.” 

There are 432,000 Bostonians registered to vote, up from 415,500 in 2016 55,716 inhabitants cast their votes in the course of early in-man or woman voting, and as of Sunday, 103,268 mail-in ballots (of 192,000 requested) experienced been returned to Town Corridor. 

The Elections Department is continuing to count votes and prepare polling destinations for Tuesday. Any person who even now has not sent in their mail-in ballot can total it and place it in a person of the city’s 17 dropbox places through 8 p.m. on Tuesday. The metropolis will settle for mail-in ballots that arrive in the mail by Friday, but only if they had been postmarked by Tues., Nov. 3.

Voters who bring their mail-in ballots to a polling site tomorrow will be asked to vote in particular person as an alternative. Poll personnel will get the mail-in ballot, void it, and trade it for a new one particular to be stuffed out there. 

In-person voting will be available from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. at 225 precincts citywide.

The broad the vast majority of people today will vote at their regular precincts, though 20 polling locations have been modified (as they ended up in the state’s most important election.) Inhabitants who voted in a distinctive web site in the most important balloting will vote at these exact locations on Tuesday.  Polling places can be found at boston.gov/elections. 

Ballots will be available at the polls in English, Chinese, Spanish, and Vietnamese, and translators will be on web site to assist any individual needing translation products and services in Haitian Creole, Cabo Verde Creole, Russian, and Portuguese.  

The metropolis has established a “dedicated voter hotline” – 617-635-VOTE (8683) for anyone who has voting-associated thoughts on Election Day. 

On Monday, Walsh reported that all of the polls will be geared up to protect personnel and voters from the coronavirus that has been spiking in the city and across the commonwealth around the last six months. Dorchester posted the best covid-19 take a look at amount previous week, at 11.9 %, very well above the citywide typical of 7.9 per cent. More than the weekend 112 new scenarios had been recorded, bringing the city’s caseload to 20,607. 

“It’s a challenging week to concentration on Covid-19 with all that’s occurring with our elections, but we have to remain vigilant,” reported Walsh. “Every polling locale is set up to stick to Covid safety recommendations and supply obtain to folks with disabilities. Polling internet sites will be cleaned a number of times in the course of the day All spots are prepared for actual physical distancing with crystal clear signage and flooring markings and all poll personnel have been issued PPE, including confront shields, tends to make, gloves, disinfectant and  hand sanitizer.” 

All those voting in particular person will be demanded to use a mask or facial area covering and abide by social distancing protocols. “I’m inquiring people— don’t check out to go and make a political statement tomorrow by heading into vote with no a mask,” explained Walsh. “I’m inquiring you to dress in a mask. Have the courtesy for the poll staff, the people all over you, and the family members that are coming there.”

A police officer will be stationed within each polling area, as is customary, Walsh observed.

“The law enforcement are there to safeguard the capacity of people to exercise their proper,” he explained. “We’re monitoring conversations across the nation about opportunity voter intimidation at polls. We do not have any facts about threats below in Boston, but I want to make it apparent that voter intimidation is towards the legislation and it won’t be tolerated.

“If you are exterior of your polling area campaigning on behalf of a prospect we’re asking you to regard the views of some others. There is a great deal of pressure all-around the election, far more than I have at any time found or felt in my lifetime,” mentioned Walsh. “Much of it is anticipation of the results of the presidential election, and for the reason that of Covid, that procedure has been additional hard.” 

City officers will article unofficial election success on line on Tuesday night, despite the fact that the Elections Office will be counting mail-in and absentee ballots for quite a few days afterward. 

“Mail in ballots do not essentially modify the method. They are dealt with like common absentee ballots— which is how we’ve generally counted the votes of the navy users and those voting abroad and out of point out,” said Walsh. 

Voters should not be amazed if there is not a distinct national final result of the presidential election on Tuesday night or for quite a few days following, explained Walsh. 

“That does not mean that the voting approach is damaged or compromised in any way. In this unique year, it appears like we’re going to be placing a document in the country for turnout in a countrywide election. I suggest everyone to be well prepared for the approach to acquire some time,” he mentioned.   

The mayor recommended voters to “think through” their reactions to the outcomes of the presidential election.  “I see a good deal of stress in our state proper now in between Covid, all of the undercurrents of systemic racism, and a presidential election that’s been at the forefront of a great deal of people’s minds for a very long time,” he explained.  “Whether you like the final results or not, there will be strong emotions on all sides tomorrow. We ought to get care of ourselves, households, and group, and we must reply peacefully.” 

Boston law enforcement officers will be lively citywide for the duration of and just after Election Working day, Walsh reported. Law enforcement Commissioner William Gross included that BPD is doing the job in partnership with federal and state law enforcement entities.

“We want you to be cozy with the truth that the Boston Law enforcement Department will cover all of the poll sites in accordance to metropolis ordinances,” Gross claimed. “We want everybody to know that we also have coverage in the neighborhoods for the community, which includes at spots of worship, educational facilities, and hospitals.

“You are not likely to see an overwhelming existence of law enforcement officers,” Gross mentioned, adding: “We really do not want any individual to sense intimidated by the police. Each and every election, you have law enforcement officers at the poll. We do have protocols in put if things do go to the facet of civil unrest or violent protests that we’re heading to apply in the city.” 

Gross verified that BPD is well prepared to deploy “a staffing stage that will accommodate calls to services, guard neighborhoods, corporations and voting polls till we have the success of the election.” 

“If added patrols are wanted, we have the property for that,” he stated. 

Walsh mentioned it’s “too early to be concerned about demonstrations,” when requested about the opportunity need to simply call on point out or federal companies if protests come up. 

“There’s no cause to feel you can find trigger for issue. We’re all cautiously optimistic that Election Working day will be incident totally free but we want to really encourage inhabitants to contact if there are fears,” he explained. 

“We have an election tomorrow and we’re inquiring all people to arrive out and vote and training your appropriate, and we’ll be geared up for whichever occurs immediately after the election.” 

window.fbAsyncInit = operate() FB.init( appId: "270847243020841", position: accurate, cookie: real, xfbml: accurate, oauth : legitimate, channelUrl: "https://www.dotnews.com/fb_social/channel" )

FB.Party.subscribe("edge.develop", perform(href, widget) _gaq.force(["_trackEvent", "Facebook like", "Drupal", href]) )

(functionality() var e = document.createElement('script') e.async = true e.src = document.area.protocol + '//hook up.facebook.web/en_US/all.js' doc.getElementById('fb-root').appendChild(e) ())

[techcrunchappcom]

New Post has been published on https://techcrunchapp.com/over-200000-people-have-died-in-the-us-live-covid-19-updates/

Over 200,000 People Have Died in the US: Live Covid-19 Updates

The virus death toll in the U.S. surpasses 200,000.

The death toll in the United States from the coronavirus pandemic passed 200,000 on Tuesday as the first day of fall brought questions about what may be ahead.

More deaths have been announced in the United States than in any other country, and reports of new coronavirus cases have climbed in the U.S. and parts of Europe in recent days, suggesting an uncertain new phase in the crisis.

Some estimated in March that fewer than 500 would die over the course of the pandemic. “More like 60,000,” the leading U.S. authority on infectious disease predicted in April. “Anywhere from 75,000, 80,000 to 100,000 people,” President Trump said in May.

But even as the toll has gone from hazy estimates to cold realities, the sheer scale has remained hard to grasp. More than 200,000 dead is such an enormous loss — nearly two and a half times the number of U.S. service members to die in battle in the Vietnam and Korean Wars — obscuring the accretion of individual tragedies: a hard-working single mother, a Hall of Fame pitcher, a D-Day veteran, an inseparable couple and a picket line troubadour.

Now that 200,000 people have died — which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had discussed in March in internal documents as a low range for a worst-case scenario — infectious disease specialists are scrambling to determine how the pandemic could evolve in the months ahead.

Fewer new cases have been detected weekly since a summer surge in the South and West peaked in late July. But the nation’s caseload is again growing, especially in states in the middle of the country like Wisconsin, Montana and North Dakota. Early months of the pandemic had affected mainly urban, coastal areas. The virus is spreading more broadly now, through rural communities and college towns. The arrival of flu season and the prospect of cooler fall air — likely to send many people indoors — have added to fears about what the coming months may bring.

Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the country’s top infectious disease expert, said he worries about the country entering the cooler months without having a handle on the virus. The country is seeing an average of about 40,000 new cases a day based on a seven-day average, according to a Times database.

“Those are the things that I get concerned about as we get into October and November and December,” Dr. Fauci said Tuesday on CNN. “I’d like to see us go into that at such a low level that when you have the inevitable cases you can handle them.”

Trends can change quickly. Early in April, around 800 people were dying each day, but that soon climbed. For two weeks, from April 13 to April 27, daily deaths calculated as a seven-day average stayed at more than 2,000. Nearly 800 deaths are currently being reported in the country each day. Some epidemiologists say the death toll could climb to 300,000 by the end of the year in the United States.

The painful milestones have come quickly: 50,000 deaths in April, 100,000 by May, and now 200,000, even as some states, such as Arizona, have shown how quickly both cases and deaths can decline by embracing mitigation efforts.

The United States has the highest total number of deaths across the globe, though a handful of countries in Europe and Latin America have seen more deaths per capita.

Still, the persistently high death numbers in the United States stand in stark contrast to mortalities in other high-income countries. Italy, once the center of the pandemic, reported 17 deaths on Monday; Germany reported 10 deaths the same day. In the United States that day, 428 people were reported to have died of the virus.

In recent days, countries that saw fewer cases this summer have seen the virus surge once more. Around the world, at least 73 countries as of Sunday were seeing upticks in newly detected cases as scientists race to find a vaccine and new treatments.

The presidents of the United States and China squared off in their speeches to the annual General Assembly on Tuesday, punctuating a superpower rivalry that the leader of the 193-member organization, Secretary-General António Guterres, has called a great global risk.

On the coronavirus, global warming, human rights, international cooperation and a range of other issues, President Trump and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, laid out starkly differing views in their prerecorded remarks.

Mr. Trump blamed China for the coronavirus and demanded that the United Nations hold the country accountable. Mr. Xi, clearly anticipating Mr. Trump’s attacks, portrayed the virus as everyone’s challenge and described China’s response as scientific, generous and responsible.

“Any attempt at politicizing or stigmatizing this issue must be rejected,” Mr. Xi said.

Mr. Trump has been a longstanding critic of the United Nations and has challenged its multilateral diplomacy as an impediment to his “America First” policy — even as the United States remains the biggest single contributor to the United Nations budget.

But as Mr. Trump has withdrawn support for U.N. agencies such as the World Health Organization and Human Rights Council, China has been stepping in to fill the void as the No. 2 financial contributor to the United Nations. China has taken leadership in a number of U.N. agencies over the past few years.

The U.S.-China rivalry has emerged as a chief worry for Mr. Guterres, and he made that clear in his opening remarks to the annual gathering.

“We are moving in a very dangerous direction,” Mr. Guterres said. “Our world cannot afford a future where the two largest economies split the globe in a Great Fracture.”

The University of Notre Dame said on Tuesday that it was postponing its upcoming game with Wake Forest and suspending “all football-related activities.” The announcement came after seven student-athletes tested positive for the coronavirus on Monday, Notre Dame said in a statement.

The move reflects the uncertainty about pressing ahead with football and other collegiate sports. Overriding objections from infectious disease specialists, the Big 12, the Southeastern Conference and the Atlantic Coast Conference, in which Notre Dame is playing this season, decided to try to play nearly a full season of football games in the months ahead. The Big 10 at first announced it would not play football this fall, but reversed itself last week.

A total of 13 Notre Dame football players are in isolation, including 10 in quarantine, the university said in its statement. Notre Dame was scheduled to play Wake Forest on Saturday in its first road game of the season.

The matchup, which was to be played in Winston-Salem, N.C., was far from the first to be postponed this season. Virginia Tech, for instance, has already had two of its games postponed, and a hastily scheduled game between Baylor and Houston was also scratched. College football officials expect a number of games to be postponed, or not played at all, in the coming months.

“We knew Covid would present challenges throughout the season,” Brian Kelly, Notre Dame’s head coach, said in a statement. “We look forward to resuming team activities and getting back on the field.”

The move by Notre Dame came after other pandemic-related problems at the university. Notre Dame suspended in-person classes last month after positive test results by 147 students, most of them seniors living off campus who had been infected at social gatherings.

A vote on vaccine rollout plans by a group that advises the C.D.C. has been delayed.

A committee that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has delayed a vote on plans to prioritize initial doses of a coronavirus vaccine, should one prove safe and effective.

The vote was initially planned for Tuesday, at a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP. The committee’s next meeting is planned for October, by which point more data will have likely emerged from several vaccines in late-stage clinical trials around the world.

The results of the vote, when it does occur, will help determine who receives the first doses of any coronavirus vaccine that shows promising results in late-stage clinical trials that test whether the product helps prevent severe cases of Covid-19 or perhaps even infection by the virus. Typically, the committee votes on these recommendations only after they have been greenlit by the Food and Drug Administration.

Two federal officials familiar with the C.D.C.’s vaccine committee said that it was a smart move to delay the vote until more data emerges from clinical trials and the F.D.A. has begun its vetting process. Some of the vaccines have very different logistical requirements and might perform better in certain subsets of the population, factors that will influence the details of the rollout plan.

The delay was first reported by The Wall Street Journal. It was confirmed by the C.D.C. senior public affairs officer Tom Skinner, as well as attendees of the ACIP’s Tuesday meeting.

President Trump has repeatedly claimed that a vaccine will be available for Americans by October, raising alarm that he is pressuring federal health agencies to rush their scientific and regulatory deliberations before the November elections.

Pfizer, a front-runner in the race for a coronavirus vaccine, has repeatedly said that its trials may produce data on vaccine effectiveness as early as October, at which point the company might apply for emergency approval for use in a subset of the population. But no vaccines have yet been approved for even limited use in the United States. And Pfizer, along with eight other drug companies, have pledged to “stand with science” and only release vaccines based on results from rigorous clinical trials.

It’s still unclear exactly how an effective vaccine will be distributed, but health care workers are expected to be among those prioritized in any forthcoming vaccine rollouts. And because no one has started the process of developing a vaccine for children, it might be fall 2021 before there’s one for kids.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain on Tuesday announced new virus-related restrictions and said that the country had reached a “perilous turning point” in the pandemic.

“This is the moment when we must act,” Mr. Johnson said in an uncharacteristically somber statement in Parliament, as he announced new measures designed to save “lives and livelihoods” that could stay in place for the next six months.

Greater penalties for breaking virus restrictions in England will be introduced, and Mr. Johnson promised mask-wearing rules would be more strongly enforced. He also announced new restrictions on nightlife and encouraged people to work from home, ramping up the country’s efforts to curb a rising tide of confirmed cases.

Pubs and restaurants will be restricted to offering table service only and must close at 10 p.m., beginning on Thursday, Downing Street revealed on Monday night; ordinarily, there is no mandatory closing time, though many close at 11 p.m. The new rules are the most stringent since restaurants, pubs and many other businesses were allowed to emerge from full lockdown in July.

After pushing hard for workers to return to the office over the summer, the British government is now encouraging people to work from home. For workers who cannot do their jobs from home, Mr. Johnson said rules on making workplaces “Covid-secure” would become a legal obligation.

Mr. Johnson also announced that fines for failing to wear a mask or for meeting more than six people would double to 200 pounds (about $260). Repeat offenders can currently be fined up to 3,200 pounds (not 10,000 pounds as an earlier version of this post said). Staff in retail and indoor hospitality, as well as passengers in taxis and for-hire vehicles, will also now be required to wear masks.

Wedding ceremonies and receptions will be downsized to a maximum of 15 people starting Monday, adult indoor sports teams will be restricted to six people, and a partial reopening of sports stadiums expected for the beginning of October was postponed.

The restrictions imposed by the central government apply only to England; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland set their own policies, which have followed a similar pattern.

Tighter restrictions are already in place in some parts of the country, and the virus alert rating was raised on Monday to Level 4, signifying that the virus is in general circulation, with transmission high or rising exponentially.

In remarks to the public posted online on Tuesday night, Mr. Johnson pleaded with residents to abide by the new restrictions, warning that “we will put more police out on the streets and use the Army to backfill if necessary.”

He warned against downplaying the risk, arguing that the virus would inevitably infect the elderly and vulnerable if it spread unchecked.

“The tragic reality of having Covid is that your mild cough can be someone else’s death knell,” he said.

Britain reported nearly 5,000 new cases on Tuesday, according to a Times database. That’s the highest figure since early May, and more than eight times the daily average in early July — with a rate of hospitalization that is doubling every seven to eight days. While the daily death toll and the number of hospitalized coronavirus patients are still quite low, the government’s scientific and medical advisers said that, unchecked, the virus could spread exponentially, to 50,000 new cases a day by next month.

Britain’s opposition leader, Keir Starmer, took aim on Tuesday at Mr. Johnson’s handling of the crisis, denouncing him as “just not up to the job” and saying that a second national lockdown would be a “sign of government failure.”

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin offered an upbeat view of the economic recovery on Tuesday, calling it the fastest rebound from any crisis in American history. Yet he acknowledged that more than half of the jobs that had been lost as a result of the pandemic had yet to be restored.

Mr. Mnuchin and Jerome H. Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, projected optimism as they testified Tuesday before the House Financial Services Committee. But Mr. Powell made clear that many of those gains were predicated on strong fiscal support, including additional jobless benefits and stimulus checks — economic support that has largely run out. Lawmakers show little indication of being able to agree on another package.

Mr. Powell told Congress that the economy had made meaningful progress but that the outlook was uncertain and policymakers will need to do more to help the millions of Americans who are out of work.

Mr. Mnuchin projected “tremendous” economic growth in the third quarter, noting increases in business activity, manufacturing and the housing market. He said that the 8.4 percent jobless rate was a “notable achievement” considering his own projections earlier this year that unemployment could hit 25 percent.

Nonetheless, Mr. Mnuchin said that more stimulus was needed and that he would continue working with Congress to strike a deal.

“The President and I remain committed to providing support for American workers and businesses,” Mr. Mnuchin said. “I believe a targeted package is still needed, and the administration is ready to reach a bipartisan agreement.”

Three N.F.L. head coaches have been fined for not wearing masks on the sidelines during games on Sunday, a league source, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed.

Pete Carroll of the Seattle Seahawks, Vic Fangio of the Denver Broncos and Kyle Shanahan of the San Francisco 49ers were each fined $100,000, with an additional $250,000 fine levied against their respective teams.

The league has mandated that coaches and other team staff members wear protective coverings over their mouths and noses at all times during games. Masks are not required for players.

During the Monday night game, the two head coaches, Jon Gruden of the Las Vegas Raiders and Sean Payton of the New Orleans Saints, wore masks around their necks but frequently did not have them over their noses or mouths.

Both have said they were already exposed to the virus, with Payton notably having been the first N.F.L. coach to publicly reveal in March that he had been infected with the virus.

“I’m doing my best,” Gruden told reporters after the game. “I’ll have to pay the fine, but I’m very sensitive about that and I apologize.”

In other news around the nation.

The nation’s top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, said people should get a flu shot no later than the end of October. “If it’s available now, you should get it now,” Dr. Fauci said Tuesday on CNN. He added not to wait until “beyond October.” This is in line with the C.D.C.’s flu shot guidance to help “reduce the strain on health care systems responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York said Tuesday that travelers from Arizona, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island and Wyoming are now required to quarantine for 14 days, joining a list of those from dozens of other states as well as Guam and Puerto Rico.

In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio said Tuesday that an announcement on the status of outdoor dining beyond Oct. 31 could come very soon. While indoor dining in the city is set to resume at limited capacity on Sept. 30, Mr. de Blasio said that outdoor dining in colder months involved a different set of health and safety concerns than during the summer. “The last piece to fill in is those rules around the continuance of outdoor: What makes sense, what doesn’t make sense, how will that work?” he said.

An Iowa school district that defied a reopening order moves toward a ‘hybrid’ model.

But the district has still not decided what level of coronavirus prevalence in the community would force it to send students home.

The dispute between the Des Moines Independent Community School District and Gov. Kim Reynolds is a stark example of tension between Republican state officials, who have followed President Trump’s lead on education policy, and local administrators, often in Democratic-leaning cities, who fear that in-person instruction is too much of a public health risk.

Ms. Reynolds has said she is prioritizing the needs of the most vulnerable students, and the state’s Education Department has threatened to require Des Moines to extend its school year — at a cost of about $1.5 million a day — if it does not comply with state regulations.

But the local school board has argued that the high caseload in Polk County, which includes Des Moines, makes it unsafe to hold in-person classes.

Of the more than 80,000 coronavirus cases in Iowa, Polk has more than 15,000, the most of any county in the state by far, according to a New York Times database.

The Des Moines school board on Monday voted 6 to 1 to start phasing in a “hybrid return to learn” plan. Preschool students will begin returning on Oct. 12, followed by elementary, middle and then high school students by Nov. 10, the Des Moines Register reported.

However, the board delayed setting an infection rate that would force the district to revert to remote learning, deciding instead to invite public health issues to provide guidance on the subject at a subsequent meeting. That means the planned return to class could still be delayed.

Iowa officials have said that 15 percent of a county’s coronavirus tests must be positive over a two-week period before its schools can close their doors — a threshold that is at least triple what many public health experts have recommended. The rules also say that districts in counties that remain below 15 percent must offer at least 50 percent of their classes in person.

In two weeks across late August and early September, Polk County had an average positivity rate of about 8 percent.

‘It affects virtually nobody,’ Trump says, minimizing the effect of the virus on young people.

Mr. Trump minimized the dangers the coronavirus poses to young people, falsely telling supporters in Ohio on Monday night that the virus “affects virtually nobody,” just hours before the country reached the grim milestone of 200,000 recorded deaths linked to the pandemic, according to a New York Times database.

Mr. Trump, who has veered back and forth between claiming that he takes the crisis seriously and dismissing it as a transient problem that will disappear on its own, made his remarks during a rambling late-night rally at an airport hangar in Dayton.

“It affects elderly people, elderly people with heart problems, if they have other problems, that’s what it really affects, in some states thousands of people — nobody young — below the age of 18, like nobody — they have a strong immune system — who knows?” Mr. Trump said.

“It affects virtually nobody,” he added. “It’s an amazing thing — by the way, open your schools!”

Dr. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has rejected that argument. He told CNN on Tuesday that 25 to 30 percent or more of the population has an underlying condition, like obesity, that contributes to their risk of severe illness.

“It can be serious in young people,” he said.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of Sept. 16, about 78 percent of the people in the country who have died from the virus were 65 years and older, a demographic that has historically favored Trump. About 20 percent of the people who have died from the virus were 64 and younger.

The C.D.C. predicts that up to 18,000 more people could die from the virus by Oct. 10.

Teachers and school administrators around the country are struggling to address one of the most pressing challenges in the new school year: How to make sure students come to virtual class, and whether to punish them if they don’t.

Attendance data from last spring, while limited, suggests that the problem loomed large in many districts. In one survey of 5,659 educators around the country, 34 percent of respondents said that no more than one in four students were attending their remote classes, and a majority said fewer than half their students were attending.

More recent data indicates the problem persists, especially in poorer communities, including many urban school systems.

Data on why students disappear from virtual school is hard to come by, but there are some obvious explanations. Many students lack a computer or stable internet; others have to work or care for younger children; and some families were evicted and had to move.

It is also likely that some students found online learning so tedious or hard to keep up with that they just dropped out, especially since many schools stopped grading or taking attendance once they closed their doors.

Most states are pushing school districts to return to normal attendance and grading policies this fall, now that they have had some time to improve their distance learning programs. That is putting pressure on schools not only to keep students engaged, but also to keep tabs on their personal circumstances and emotional health.

Returning to normal attendance expectations has also sharpened a debate among education officials about how to approach truancy. Last spring, Massachusetts school officials reported dozens of families to the state’s Department of Children and Families because of issues related to their children’s participation in remote learning, The Boston Globe reported last month. Districts with large Black and Latino populations filed the most reports, the paper found.

But many districts have eased up on harsh truancy rules — which can involve fines and even jail for parents and, sometimes, students — during the pandemic out of concern that students had legitimate obstacles to attending class.

“I do think more schools are open to the notion that you need alternatives to legal action,” said Hedy Chang, the director of Attendance Works, a national group that promotes solutions to chronic absenteeism. “There’s a lot more empathy.”

Mexico announced on Tuesday that it would formally join the World Health Organization’s new vaccine-distribution initiative.

The program, known as COVAX, was announced on Monday, and will allow the 156 participating countries to pool their resources to clinch bulk deals with pharmaceutical companies while their vaccines are still in development, in an effort to ensure faster and more equitable distribution.

The W.H.O. on Monday urged more rich nations to support the project, which aims to deliver about two billion doses worldwide by the end of 2021. The W.H.O. needs the financial muscle of the rich nations to, in effect, subsidize the vaccines for the poorer members.

Three major economies — the United States, China and Russia — have not joined. All three are pursuing their own vaccine plans.

In a virtual appearance before the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, insisted that Russia’s vaccine was safe and effective, and offered free shots to U.N. staff. Russia’s approval of the vaccine, which came with much fanfare, occurred before it had been tested in late-stage trials.

More than 130 potential vaccines are estimated to be in development globally.

Mexico’s foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard, said Tuesday that COVAX “represents the most secure means of access, because it includes vaccines from very different countries of the world.”

Mexico has seen one of the world’s worst coronavirus outbreaks, with over 700,000 recorded cases, or 555 per 100,000 people, and nearly 74,000 deaths, according to a Times database.

In other news around the world:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand has apologized after being photographed with supporters without social distancing or masks last week while on the campaign trail, drawing criticism from the public and opposition politicians.

The awards ceremony for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize has been canceled because of the pandemic, the Norwegian Nobel Institute announced on Tuesday. Instead of the usual ceremony at Oslo City Hall, a scaled-back event will be held at the city’s university with a limited number of guests on Dec. 10. The prize will be announced at a news conference on Oct. 9.

Russia has reported a sharp rise in the number of new cases, with Moscow the epicenter of a nationwide spike in infections. Official figures released on Tuesday showed 6,215 new cases over the previous 24 hours — a marked increase from the start of the month and the highest number of daily cases since mid-July. Of those, 980 were reported in Moscow.

South Korea on Tuesday suspended a plan to provide free flu shots for about 19 million people, amid reports of problems with storing some of the vaccines during transport. The number of newly confirmed cases in the country, which is battling a second wave of infections, has stayed below 100 for the past three days. But millions are set to travel domestically next week to celebrate a five-day holiday.

Sixteen more residential areas in Madrid exceeded the infection rate criteria to return to lockdown restrictions, government data showed Tuesday. Those areas are in addition to 37 areas that went back under lockdown on Monday, raising the prospect that restrictions on movement will soon spread further across Spain’s capital region. Ignacio Aguado, the deputy head of the Madrid region, said that health care services were struggling to control the spread of the virus, while Salvador Illa, Spain’s health minister, urged residents of Madrid to stay at home as much as possible.

Reporting was contributed by Livia Albeck-Ripka, Stephen Castle, Troy Closson, Rick Gladstone, Abby Goodnough, Andrew Higgins, Jan Hoffman, Mike Ives, Anatoly Kurmanaev, Apoorva Mandavilli, Victor Mather, Patrick McGeehan, Raphael Minder, Claire Moses, Campbell Robertson, Simon Romero, Dagny Salas, Anna Schaverien, Christopher F. Schuetze, Megan Specia, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Eileen Sullivan, Katherine J. Wu, Carl Zimmer and Karen Zraick.

[paulbenedictblog]

%news%

New Post has been published on %http://paulbenedictsgeneralstore.com%

Usa today Sanders leads polls ahead of New Hampshire primary, while Buttigieg climbs and Biden nosedives

Usa today

William Cummings, USA TODAY Printed 4: 12 p.m. ET Feb. 9, 2020 | Up to this level 1: 50 p.m. ET Feb. 10, 2020

CLOSE

The debate between the Iowa caucuses and Fresh Hampshire main had some Democratic candidates touchdown blows, and a few making strides. USA TODAY

Sen. Bernie Sanders continues to lead in polling sooner than Fresh Hampshire's main Tuesday whereas archaic South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg has surged into second predicament. 

The polls designate Buttigieg has rising fortify from Fresh Hampshire voters whereas archaic Vice President Joe Biden has tumbled in most novel Granite Declare polls. 

The results from Iowa's caucuses last week are silent no longer reputable after delays and inconsistencies with the vote depend, but Buttigieg's tough attach there appears to be like to private given his campaign a soar heading into Fresh Hampshire. Buttigieg and Sanders private both declared victory in that unsettled contest, which is present process a precinct analysis that whisper Democrats acknowledged would perchance be carried out Monday. 

Usa today A seek on the polls 

A poll from CNN and the College of Fresh Hampshire Search for Center launched Sunday discovered that 28% of seemingly main voters prefer Sanders, whereas 21% thought to vote for Buttigieg and 12% thought to vote for Biden. 9 percent acknowledged they'd assist Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, 6% acknowledged they thought to vote for Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, 5% were for Bring collectively. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, 4% backed entrepreneur Andrew Yang and a pair of% were for billionaire Tom Steyer. The opposite candidates came in at 1% or less. 

A CBS Recordsdata/YouGov poll launched Sunday discovered the flee even tighter, with Sanders the need of 29% of seemingly voters in Fresh Hampshire's Democratic main and Buttigieg appreciated by 25%. That poll discovered Warren (19%) in third sooner than Biden (12%) and Klobuchar (10%). 

The CBS Recordsdata and CNN polls were conducted from Feb. 5-8. The CBS Recordsdata poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.3 proportion functions, whereas the CNN poll's margin of error used to be plus or minus 5 proportion functions. 

A pair of monitoring polls conducted since Friday evening's Democratic debate discovered Klobuchar used to be the finest candidate to pick out up a noticeable enhance from her debate performance. 

Emerson School's monitoring poll with Recordsdata 7 discovered Sanders leading at 30% on Sunday, adopted by Buttigieg (20%), Klobuchar (13%), Warren (12%) and Biden (11%). That represented a four-level jump for Klobuchar and a four-level tumble for Buttigieg from the outdated poll, which used to be conducted before the debate. 

A WBZ/Boston Globe/Suffolk College monitoring poll – two-thirds of which used to be conducted at some stage in and after the debate – discovered a 3-level enhance for Klobuchar to 9% from 6% within the outdated day's poll. But she silent trailed Sanders (24%) adopted by Buttigieg at 22% (down from 25% the day before), Warren (13%) and Biden (10%). 

CLOSE

The info cycle is jampacked with polls. But private you ever wondered how polls basically work and what they indicate? USA TODAY

Candidates rush on the attack 

In conjunction with his enhance within the polls, Buttigieg has intention below fire from both Sanders and Biden. 

The 2020 candidates: Who is operating for president? An interactive data

Biden's campaign launched an ad on Saturday that paints Buttigieg as an inexperienced smalltown mayor who's unqualified for the White Condo. 

"It be a conventional political attack," Buttigieg acknowledged on CNN's "Declare of the Union" Sunday. "And it is too unfriendly, because so many communities, communities take care of mine in South Bend, we all know that we would perchance perhaps look diminutive from the perspective of Washington, but, to us, it is what's occurring in Washington that appears to be like to be like so diminutive and diminutive-minded." 

Biden acknowledged on ABC Recordsdata' "This Week" that he used to be defending himself from Buttigieg who he acknowledged unfairly blamed the Obama administration for a huge selection of of the country's most novel considerations. 

'Stakes are extremely high': Fresh Hampshire voters in actuality feel the stress as main looms

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Final JogSubsequent Jog

"Let's pick up one thing straight here," Biden acknowledged. "I did not attack Pete. Pete's been attacking me." 

"I attach no longer perceive, when they talk in regards to the past, why Barack used to be this type of dreadful president. I believed he used to be a moderately damn lawful president," Biden acknowledged. "But that's the implication." 

On CNN, Buttigieg explained that his argument used to be no longer supposed as a criticism of the Obama administration but a demand a new means. 

"This is just not forever in actuality 2008. It be 2020. And we are in a new second, calling for a unusual type of management," he acknowledged. 

Sanders has long gone after Buttigieg for accepting campaign contributions from successfully off and company donors.

"In the event you attain, as Mayor Buttigieg does, consume mountainous amounts of contributions from the CEOs of the pharmaceutical enterprise, from financiers within the fossil fuel enterprise, from the insurance protection companies, from Wall Avenue, does someone severely imagine that you just is seemingly to be going to withstand those significant entities and explain working people?" Sanders asked "Fox Recordsdata Sunday" host Chris Wallace. 

"Bernie's somewhat successfully off, and I would happily accept a contribution from him," Buttigieg acknowledged on CNN. "This is the war of our lives. I'm no longer partial to the most novel campaign finance system, but I'm also insistent that we have got bought to hurry into this with the total fortify we are capable of pick up." 

What we all know: A Fresh Hampshire main prefer is predominant for loads of Democrats

In an apparent dig at Sanders, Buttigieg acknowledged he used to be "angry by a message that claims, 'must you is seemingly to be no longer for revolution, you should be for the online site quo,' because I deem that leaves most folks out." 

2020 candidates on the points: A voter's data to where they stand on health care, gun defend an eye on and more

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Final JogSubsequent Jog

Read or Portion this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/data/politics/elections/2020/02/09/new-hampshire-main-flee-bernie-sanders-pete-buttigieg/4707650002/

Receive Fresh & Feeble Vehicles

Fresh VehiclesFeeble Vehicles

of

Powered by Vehicles.com

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Democrats had a really good night on Tuesday, easily claiming the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races, flipping control of the Washington state Senate and possibly also the Virginia House of Delegates, passing a ballot measure in Maine that will expand Medicaid in the state, winning a variety of mayoral elections around the country, and gaining control of key county executive seats in suburban New York.

They also got pretty much exactly the results you’d expect when opposing a Republican president with a 38 percent approval rating.

That’s not to downplay Democrats’ accomplishments. Democrats’ results were consistent enough, and their margins were large enough, that Tuesday’s elections had a wave-like feel. That includes how they performed in Virginia, where Ralph Northam won by considerably more than polls projected. When almost all the tossup races go a certain way, and when the party winning those tossup races also accomplishes certain things that were thought to be extreme long shots (such as possibly winning the Virginia House of Delegates), it’s almost certainly a reflection of the national environment.

But we didn’t need Tuesday night to prove that the national environment was good for Democrats; there was plenty of evidence for it already. In no particular order of importance:

President Trump’s approval rating is only 37.6 percent.

Democrats lead by approximately 10 points on the generic Congressional ballot.

Republican incumbents are retiring at a rapid pace; there were two retirements (from New Jersey Rep. Frank LoBiondo and Texas Rep. Ted Poe) on Tuesday alone.

Democrats are recruiting astonishing numbers of candidates for Congress.

Democrats have performed well overall in special elections to the U.S. Congress, relative to the partisanship of those districts; they’ve also performed well in special elections to state legislatures.

The opposition party almost always gains ground at midterm elections. This is one of the most durable empirical rules of American politics.

So while Northam’s 9-point margin of victory was a surprise based on the polls, which had projected him to win by roughly 3 points instead1, it was right in line with what you might expect based on these “fundamental” factors. For instance, a simple model we developed based on the generic ballot and state partisanship forecasted a 9-point win for Democrats in Virginia and a 13-point win in New Jersey, pretty much matching their actual results in each state.

To put it another way, Tuesday’s results shouldn’t have exceeded your expectations for Democrats by all that much because you should have had high expectations already. Midterm elections — and usually also off-year and special elections — almost always go well for the opposition party, and they’re going to go especially well when the president has a sub-40 approval rating.

So, does that mean that Democrats are clear favorites to pick up the House next year? No, not necessarily. I’d say they’re favorites, but not particularly heavy ones. Democrats face one major disadvantage, and have one major source of uncertainty.

The uncertainty is time: there’s still a year to go until the midterms. This could cut either way, of course. The political environment often deteriorates for the president’s party during his second year in office, and one can imagine a variety of factors (from attempting to pass an unpopular tax plan to ongoing bombshells in the Russia investigation) that could further worsen conditions for Republicans. One can also imagine a variety of factors that would help the GOP: Democrats overplaying their hand on impeachment; a rally-around-the-flag effect after a war or terror attack; Trump quitting Twitter. (Okay, probably not that last one.) That Trump is so unpopular so soon in his term makes all of this harder to predict because there aren’t any good precedents for a president with such a poor approval rating so early on.

Democrats also face a big disadvantage in the way their voters are distributed across Congressional districts, as a result of both gerrymandering and geographic self-sorting. Although these calculations can vary based on the incumbency advantage and other factors, my back-of-the-envelope math suggests that Democrats would only be about even-money to claim the House even if they won the popular vote for the House by 7 percentage points next year. The Republican ship is built to take on a lot of water, although it would almost certainly capsize if the Democratic advantage in the House popular vote stretched into the double digits, as it stands now in some Congressional preference polls.

Nonetheless, my sense is that the conventional wisdom has, to this point, somewhat underrated the Democrats’ chances of having a wave election next year. And it’s for some fairly stupid (although understandable) reasons.

One is in the tendency to fight the last war. Journalists and pundits are always chastened by the “lessons” of the most recent election, especially if the outcome was surprising to them. And they usually like to argue that the results represented a realignment or a paradigm shift, rather than — as is more often the case — a fluctuation that came about from a combination of cyclical and circumstantial factors that may not replicate themselves again. So they’re often slow to recognize signs that the political climate is shifting in the opposite direction from the supposed realignment, even when they’re really obvious. (Like, say, a Republican winning a Senate seat in Massachusetts only a year after the Democratic president took office.)

Second, the pundit class has a poor understanding of polling, and how it performed in 2016 — and it’s making 2018 punditry worse. As I wrote in our live blog on Tuesday night:

[It’s] been interesting to see how television pundits adapt to the post-2016 environment. Pretty much everyone on Monday morning’s “Morning Joe” panel predicted that Gillespie would win in Virginia despite Northam’s modest lead in the polls, for instance…

[The] segment was a bit worrisome in that it suggests that political pundits and reporters learned the wrong lessons from 2016. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the polls weren’t that far off last year — they were about as accurate as they’d been in past elections. But they were filtered thru a lens of groupthink that was convinced Trump couldn’t possibly win — and so pundits routinely misinterpreted polls and ignored data showing a competitive race.

It’s healthy to take away the lesson from 2016 that polls are not always right… But that polls aren’t always right doesn’t mean that one’s gut instinct is a better way to forecast elections. On the contrary, the conventional wisdom has usually been much wronger than the polls, so much so that it’s given rise to what I’ve called the First Rule of Polling Errors, which is that polls almost always miss in the opposite direction of what pundits expect. That the “Morning Joe” panel thinks Gillespie will win might be a bullish indicator for Northam, in other words.

If you think numbers like Trump’s 37.6 percent approval rating are “fake news” because polls perpetually underrated Trump before, then the political climate doesn’t look quite as scary for the GOP. However, one needs to be careful about assuming the polling error always runs in the same direction; historically, it’s been just as likely to reverse itself from one election to the next. (For instance, polls lowballed Democrats in 2012 but then did the same to Republicans in 2014.)

Finally, there’s perhaps an unhealthy obsession with the white working-class vote, and its potential to sway the 2018 midterms in favor of Republicans. This could be more of a concern for Democrats in 2020. But the midterm electorate is typically more educated and better off financially than the presidential-year one. Also, most of the pickup opportunities that analysts envision for Democrats are in wealthy or at least middle-class areas. On average, the 61 Republican-held Congressional districts that the Cook Political Report rates as competitive rank in the 65th percentile in educational attainment (as measured by the share of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree) and also the 65th percentile in median household income. Some of them are fairly white, and some aren’t — but almost none are both white and working-class.

Competitive districts are mostly well-off and well-educated

Demographic ranking for the 61 Republican-held Congressional districts that the Cook Political Report rates as competitive

PERCENTILE RANK AMONG ALL 435 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS SEAT▲▼ COOK RATING▲▼ EDUCATION▲▼ INCOME▲▼ NONWHITE▲▼ Georgia 6 Leans Republican 99 92 62 California 45 Leans Republican 97 96 71 New Jersey 11 Leans Republican 96 99 36 Virginia 10 Toss-up 96 100 58 Illinois 6 Leans Republican 95 96 29 New Jersey 7 Leans Republican 95 99 43 Minnesota 3 Leans Republican 94 91 28 Texas 7 Leans Republican 94 80 77 Kansas 3 Leans Republican 93 81 39 Michigan 11 Toss-up 92 88 25 California 48 Toss-up 90 93 66 California 49 Toss-up 88 89 60 Pennsylvania 7 Leans Republican 88 92 18 Texas 32 Leans Republican 88 78 73 Pennsylvania 6 Leans Republican 87 90 19 Illinois 14 Likely Republican 86 94 28 California 39 Leans Republican 85 91 88 Colorado 6 Toss-up 85 85 57 Michigan 8 Leans Republican 82 71 22 Georgia 7 Likely Republican 81 82 76 Nebraska 2 Toss-up 81 66 37 Pennsylvania 8 Leans Republican 81 89 17 Virginia 7 Likely Republican 80 83 50 Minnesota 2 Toss-up 79 88 22 Florida 27 Leans Democratic 78 39 93 Pennsylvania 18 Likely Republican 74 67 2 North Carolina 2 Likely Republican 73 70 51 New York 11 Likely Republican 70 80 61 Virginia 2 Likely Republican 70 72 57 Arizona 2 Toss-up 68 25 58 New York 1 Likely Republican 68 94 33 New Jersey 3 Likely Republican 67 84 33 North Carolina 9 Likely Republican 66 50 60 Ohio 1 Likely Republican 66 49 45 Iowa 3 Leans Republican 64 65 18 Ohio 16 Likely Republican 64 68 3 Kentucky 6 Likely Republican 61 32 21 Montana Likely Republican 59 29 13 Florida 18 Likely Republican 57 47 48 New York 24 Likely Republican 56 51 21 Illinois 13 Likely Republican 55 27 26 Kansas 2 Leans Republican 50 38 19 New York 19 Toss-up 50 57 18 Washington 8 Toss-up 49 65 49 California 50 Likely Republican 47 81 68 Utah 4 Likely Republican 47 76 34 Virginia 5 Likely Republican 46 40 38 California 25 Toss-up 44 84 78 Florida 26 Leans Republican 42 45 95 Iowa 1 Toss-up 42 54 10 North Carolina 13 Likely Republican 41 21 53 New York 22 Leans Republican 37 42 12 New Jersey 2 Toss-up 36 60 52 Pennsylvania 16 Likely Republican 33 52 39 Michigan 7 Likely Republican 31 51 11 Illinois 12 Leans Republican 29 20 31 Maine 2 Leans Republican 24 18 <1 Texas 23 Leans Republican 18 35 91 New Mexico 2 Likely Republican 16 8 83 California 10 Leans Republican 5 58 77 California 21 Likely Republican <1 7 95

Sources: COOK POLITICAL REPORT, AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

Of course, this logic is somewhat circular: if Democrats aren’t trying to compete for the white working-class vote, outlets like Cook won’t list white working-class districts as being competitive. It’s possible there are some overlooked opportunities, such as in South Carolina’s 5th Congressional district, which Democrats came surprisingly close to winning in a special election earlier this year.

Nonetheless, Democrats have quite a few pathways toward winning the House that rely primarily on middle-class and upper-middle-class suburban districts, plus a few districts with growing nonwhite populations. Many of these are in coastal states or in blue states, including four of them in Virginia, four in New Jersey, four in Illinois, five in New York and eight in California, according to Cook’s list. It might not be advisable for Democrats to only target these sorts of districts; history suggests that parties usually benefit from competing ambitiously in all sorts of districts and seeing where the chips fall. But it’s plausible for them to do so and reclaim the House. Come 2020, though, it will be harder for Democrats to win back the Electoral College without rebounding among the white working-class.

Last thing: while Tuesday’s results may not change the reality of the 2018 outlook all that much, it could change perceptions about it, and that could have some knock-on effects. (Politicians are often like “Morning Joe” panelists in how they think about elections.) Republicans’ retirement issues may get even worse; Democrats’ recruiting may get even better. Republicans might think twice about how they’re proceeding on tax reform — especially given that their current plans could have negative effects on just the sorts of wealthy coastal suburbs where Republicans performed poorly on Tuesday.

And there will be lots of recriminations about the race that Ed Gillespie ran in Virginia, which could change Republicans’ thinking on how they should relate to Trump. Some of this is going to be silly: Gillespie did no worse (and no better) than you’d expect given Trump’s approval rating and Virginia’s blue lean. But if those politicians think Tuesday was a huge game-changing deal, they may begin to act like it and create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[toldnews-blog]

New Post has been published on https://toldnews.com/world/estonias-far-right-ministers-face-rocky-start-with-first-resignation/

Estonia's far-right ministers face rocky start with first resignation

Image copyright Reuters

Image caption Like father, like son: Martin (L) and Mart Helme make the OK sign – used as a “dog whistle” by white nationalists

A tumultuous first week for the new Estonian government has resulted in the resignation of a right-wing minister after just a day in office.

The far-right EKRE party gained five cabinet positions after a strong electoral performance.

Party leader Mart Helme and his son both made alleged white power gestures at their swearing-in on Monday.

Marti Kuusik, minister of foreign trade and IT, resigned the next day over accusations of domestic violence.

The allegations against Mr Kuusik, an MP for the Conservative People’s Party of Estonia (EKRE), began in media reports.

Police have since begun an investigation into the matter. He denies any wrongdoing, and regards the allegations as slander against him.

“In addition to a horrible media attack against me, the prosecutor’s office decided to start a criminal investigation. In this situation I cannot work as a minister,” he said in a statement.

How far right came to power

EKRE came third in the March 2019 election, picking up 17.8% of the vote and 19 seats. It joined a coalition led by Juri Ratas’s Centre Party, entering government for the first time.

At Marti Kuusik’s swearing-in on Monday, Estonian President Kersti Kaljulaid left the parliament chamber when he swore his oath, forcing him to salute an empty chair, Estonian public broadcaster ERR reported.

On Tuesday, Mr Kuusik’s resignation was accepted, with Prime Minister Ratas saying that when family violence was concerned there was no room for justification or doubt.

In a Facebook post, President Kaljulaid thanked the prime minister, saying she hoped “it will give courage to anyone who suffers violence”.

She also thanked Estonia’s press for highlighting the story – echoing the support she showed for freedom of the press on Monday, when she wore a sweatshirt reading “speech is free” in Estonian to the swearing-in ceremony.

Image copyright Reuters

Image caption Estonia’s president attended the swearing in wearing a jumper which reads: “speech is free”

Some Estonian journalists have expressed concern that the far-right EKRE is exerting political pressure on media organisations.

At the same ceremony, EKRE leader Mart Helme and his son Martin both appeared to make a white power gesture while being sworn in.

Is the white power gesture just OK?

The hand gesture, adopted from the familiar “OK” symbol, has spread rapidly among far-right and white nationalist groups in recent years, particularly in the United States.

Its use in that way was begun by online trolls as a joke, spreading a “hidden meaning” to media as a form of disinformation. Its continued use in that manner, however, resulted in the widely-used gesture becoming connected with white nationalists.

It was used in court by the suspect in the New Zealand shootings which killed 49 people when he opened fire on two mosques around Christchurch.

Former Estonian President Toomas Ilves tweeted about the use of the “white power sign”, and has actively challenged those who say there is no such intended meaning.

Skip Twitter post by @IlvesToomas

Because when it came out the emoji had not been yet given additional significance. Not hard to figure out. Just like the Finnish Air Force in the 1920s used a swastika; it didn’t mean what it later came to mean. https://t.co/T9xzcefZaK

— toomas hendrik ilves (@IlvesToomas) April 30, 2019

End of Twitter post by @IlvesToomas

Former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt echoed the concern, saying the use of the symbol by EKRE members made him “genuinely worried”.

The Anti-Defamation League in the United States says the “obvious and ancient gesture” has “acquired a new and different significance” thanks to the online hoax of 2017.

“By 2019, at least some white supremacists seem to have abandoned the ironic or satiric intent behind the original trolling campaign and used the symbol as a sincere expression of white supremacy,” it says.

But it warns that “particular care must be taken not to jump to conclusions” about the intent of someone using the symbol without “other contextual evidence”.

Critics point to remarks made by Martin Helme in 2013 that his message to immigrants was “if you’re black, go back” and that “I want Estonia to be a white country”. His father has expressed concern about immigration resulting in indigenous Estonians being “replaced”.

What does EKRE stand for?

EKRE has called for a referendum on EU membership, but denies being against membership itself. During campaigning the party pushed anti-immigration rhetoric and promised to slash taxes.

As part of negotiations that led to Juri Ratas remaining in power, EKRE were handed five ministerial positions: foreign trade, environment, finance, interior, and rural affairs.

Before he took up the post of interior minister, Mart Helme promised that it would not be a stagnant government but would “break many things in Estonia”.

http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

[maxwellyjordan]

Symposium: Constitutional doctrine and political reality in the faithless elector cases

David G. Post is a former professor of law at the Beasley School of Law at Temple University, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and a contributor at the Volokh Conspiracy blog. He joined an amicus brief in support of the presidential electors in Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca.

Our constitutional scheme for electing a president is a curious one indeed. We are all familiar with one of its features: the built-in imbalance between state population and state electoral power in the “Electoral College” (a term, incidentally, not found in the Constitution itself). Because Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution allocates to each state one “presidential elector” for each member of the House of Representatives to which the state is entitled, plus two additional electors (one for each of the state’s senators), residents of smaller states end up with proportionately more electoral power than larger states; for instance, New York gets one elector for every 670,000 residents, while South Dakota gets one for every 295,000 of its residents.

There are, however, other less familiar but equally puzzling or noteworthy elements to the overall scheme. Who are those “electors,” anyway? And what, exactly, do they do while serving in the “Electoral College”?

You can be forgiven for not having paid much (or any) attention to these questions since high school social studies class. Perhaps you notice when, every four years, a month or so after the presidential election, there is an announcement, buried at the back end of the newspapers and your news feed, that the Electoral College has met and formally ratified the election results. Most of us, I suspect, greet the news with a shrug; it’s just a bit of “kabuki democracy” – purely ceremonial, and not, in the greater scheme of things, terribly important.

The constitutional text, and the original understanding of the Framers as to the meaning of that text, however, tell a very different story. Article II, Section 1, as modified by the 12th Amendment in 1804, lays out the basic scheme.

The states each appoint their own electors, “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

The electors “meet in their respective States” on a date that “Congress may determine” and that “shall be the same throughout the United States.” (It is currently the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.)

On that date, “the Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President.”

The ballots are transmitted to the “seat of government of the United States” to be counted.

The “person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President [and] the person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President.”

On the face of it, then, and strange as it may seem to us today, the Framers of the Constitution contemplated that electors would not merely ceremonially ratify the president’s election by others, but that they – the electors – would actually elect the president. As Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist No. 68, the president would be chosen by “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station,” noting that a “small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicated an investigation.” Or, as Justice Robert Jackson wrote many years later in Ray v. Blair:

No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, is that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the [individuals] best qualified for the Nation’s highest offices.

This system was part of the Constitution’s ingenious method of diffusing the power to select officers of the new federal government by distributing it to different bodies, each ultimately accountable to “the People.” Members of the House of Representatives would be chosen directly by “the People of the several States”; senators would be chosen by members of a different body – the state legislatures; and the president and vice-president would be chosen by yet a third body – the presidential electors.

Ingenious and unprecedented, yes, but it hasn’t quite worked out as intended. The indirect election of senators was replaced by direct election in the 17th Amendment in 1913. And although the constitutional text concerning presidential elections has not been altered since 1804, the electors have never really played the role originally contemplated for them, because the states had something else in mind.

Remarkably enough, given that the Constitution gives states the power to enact pretty much whatever mode of appointing electors they would like, all 50 states have converged on a more or less identical system for choosing electors:

Before any votes are cast, the political party representing each eligible presidential candidate must deliver a slate of proposed electors to state election officials;

All proposed electors must pledge in some fashion that if appointed, they will vote for the candidate on whose slate they appear;

Voters cast their ballots for one or another of the eligible presidential candidates on the first Tuesday in November;

The votes are counted and the count certified; and

The state appoints its entire complement of electors – winner-take-all – from the slate put forward by the party whose candidate received a plurality of the votes cast.

The system virtually ensures that the collective result of the electors’ balloting is entirely foreordained, predetermined by the November vote tallies. Electors can be counted on to do what they have pledged to do, i.e., to vote for the candidate on whose slate they appeared.

But what if they don’t?

This brings us to the so-called “faithless,” or “anomalous,” electors in the two cases at hand: Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in both Washington and Colorado. In both states, however, a small number of electors, though they had been chosen by the Clinton campaign and pledged to vote for her, cast their electoral ballots for someone else – the Colorado electors for John Kasich, the Washington electors for Colin Powell. Colorado responded by rescinding the appointments of these electors and replacing them with electors who voted as directed; in Washington, the electors were each fined $1,000.

The (narrow) question in these cases is: Does the Constitution permit a state to control the behavior of its electors in this way, removing them from office or imposing some sort of punishment on them, if they break their pledge and vote contrary to state direction?

It is a question that the Supreme Court has never squarely addressed before. In my view (shared by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in the Colorado case, though not by the Washington Supreme Court in the Washington case), the answer is no. The constitutional argument is fairly straightforward. States have absolute power to appoint electors however they wish; but once electors have been appointed, they are federal government officials, performing a federal government function, and states may not interfere with the performance of federal functions by federal officials. This venerable constitutional principle is traceable back as far as Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1819 opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland, which invalidated Maryland’s attempt to impose a tax on banknotes issued by the Bank of the United States. A state may not order a member of its delegation in Congress, or one of its senators, or the Secretary of Agriculture who is a state resident, to take (or to refrain from taking) certain actions in their official capacities or risk punishment, and the same is true of the electors. In the 10th Circuit’s words:

In short, while the Constitution grants the states plenary power to appoint their electors, it does not provide the states the power to interfere once voting begins, to remove an elector, to direct the other electors to disregard the removed elector’s vote, or to appoint a new elector to cast a replacement vote. In the absence of such a delegation, the states lack such power.

What makes these cases particularly interesting, and particularly difficult, though, is the way this foundational constitutional principle butts up against practical and political realities. Over the last 200 years or so, our political institutions, and our entire political system, have been shaped by the expectation that electors are not free agents exercising their independent discretion to choose among the candidates. Imagine the disbelief and outrage that would have greeted the announcement on December 19, 2016, that the electors, exercising their independent and nonpartisan judgment, had chosen Colin Powell, or John Kasich – or Hillary Clinton, for that matter – to be our president. That’s not how we, collectively, think the system works – even if that’s how it works on paper, and how its designers intended it to work.

Paying heed to this principle of state noninterference in the performance of federal duties without unnecessarily destabilizing long-settled and deeply rooted expectations undergirding our electoral system would be no simple task for the Supreme Court in the best of times – and these are not the best of times. Indeed, it strikes me as a singularly inopportune moment for the court to be entering this fray. Not only are we in the midst of a social and economic crisis of unprecedented magnitude, but the final stage of a presidential campaign that is likely to be unusually bitter and contentious is about to begin. Constitutional doctrine and constitutional history may weigh heavily, as I believe they do, in the electors’ favor here. But affirming the electors’ independence from state control now – giving our political system no real opportunity to digest and adjust to the news before the next presidential election is upon us – strikes me as unwise. We have muddled through without clarification on this question for 200 years; another one won’t kill us.

The pandemic gives the court the opportunity to move this case, as it has moved a number of other cases, onto next year’s calendar. I’m very sorry it hasn’t – yet – seized it.

The post Symposium: Constitutional doctrine and political reality in the faithless elector cases appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/04/symposium-constitutional-doctrine-and-political-reality-in-the-faithless-elector-cases/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[itsfinancethings]

Fresh off of a bruising performance in Iowa and less than a week before the next vote in New Hampshire, Joe Biden is struggling to hit his stride.

“Look, folks. We had a good night last night in Iowa,” the former Vice President told a crowd in Nashua, N.H. on Tuesday. “We think we’re going to come out of there doing well.” Less than 24-hours later, in Somersworth, N.H., he’d tried a new tack. “I’m not gonna sugarcoat it: We took a gut punch in Iowa,” he said on Wednesday.

One thing is clear: Biden’s hopes for an easy march to the nomination have been dashed. With 86 percent of the results of Monday’s Iowa caucuses counted, the one-time front-runner appears to be trailing Pete Buttigieg and Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and may soon face a demoralizing finish in which he wins a grand total of zero delegates in the Hawkeye state.

Having built his campaign in part on a theme of resilience, Biden must now figure out once again how to rebound. “This isn’t the first time in my life I’ve been knocked down,” he told voters Wednesday.

The headwinds are strong. Biden ended the year with a little less than $9 million in the bank — half of Sanders’s nest egg and significantly less than Buttigieg’s more than $14 million. Meanwhile, Mike Bloomberg’s late-coming campaign smelled blood in the water. In the wake of Biden’s likely dismal performance in Iowa, the former New York City Mayor doubled his television advertising and increased his field staff to more than 2,000.

But if Biden’s reservoir of confidence is shaken, it’s not entirely cracked. A pro-Biden super PAC, run by longtime adviser Larry Rasky, announced Tuesday morning that it would make a $900,000 media buy in New Hampshire to supplement the campaign’s spending.

And Biden’s supporters argue he’s still got a good shot of coming out of the early states at the front of the pack. While he may not end up shining in disproportionately white states like Iowa or New Hampshire, many expect him to do better in South Carolina and Nevada, where African-Americans and Latinos make up a larger share of the Democratic base.

“You should look at the first four states as a package,” Biden senior adviser Symone Sanders tells TIME. “We feel good that when we get to Super Tuesday after the first four states, we will be in a strong position.”

A Washington Post-Ipsos poll from early January found that Biden was by far the most popular candidate among African-Americans, and a handful of endorsements, including a nod from the chairman of the Hispanic Caucus’ political arm, may buoy his prospects among Latinos. On Wednesday, the 775,000-person union of electrical workers joined the 300,000 unionized firefights in backing Biden — a potential boost to Biden’s working-class appeal.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, Biden campaign staffers worked to spin the Iowa results as a good thing for their candidate: Sanders’ strong showing in Iowa is bracing to many centrists, moderates and even progressives who want, above all else, to beat Trump. Biden’s staffers argue that fears over a potential Sanders’ potential nomination is a useful reality check that will serve Biden. As Democrats—and especially the Democratic donor class—recognize that they need to rally behind a consensus candidate, Biden remains the most obvious choice.

But with Buttigieg insurgent and Bloomberg lurking in the wings, Biden must prove that he’s the middle-of-the-road candidate who can win in for a long, hard fight.

This week, the 77-year-old was slow of the mark, at first refusing to deviate from his Iowa script. The stage in Nashua, N.H. on Tuesday morning was decorated with the same yellow firefighter posters that he’d used in Iowa, and his stump speech launched with the same stale joke.

But by Wednesday, Biden appeared willing to switch gears. After months of playing Iowa Nice, Biden was suddenly on the offensive. Taking the stage in a former church in Somersworth, N.H., on Wednesday, Biden warned a small-town crowd of supporters that Sanders atop the Democratic ballot this fall could spell troubles for candidates in other races. “Every Democrat will have to carry the label Senator Sanders has chosen for himself,” he warned darkly. “He calls him — and I don’t criticize him for this — he calls himself a democratic socialist.”

He also took a swipe at Buttigieg. “I have great respect for Mayor Pete and his service to this nation,” Biden said. “But I do believe it is a risk — to be just straight-up with you — for this party to nominate someone who has never held an office higher than a mayor of a town of 100,000 people in Indiana. I do believe it is a risk.”

Asked about his tonal switch, Biden adviser Symone Sanders smiled. “We came to play,” she says. “The Vice President has been a fighter his entire life and we saw that here today.”

Still, there were signs that Biden still wasn’t totally comfortable with the new tone. His aggressive critiques of his top rivals were loaded onto teleprompters and he didn’t respond when reporters asked him on the way out of the room why he was going negative. Former New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen, a NeverTrumper who is backing former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld’s primary against Trump, noted Biden’s shakiness. “If you don’t have your stump speech down on February 5…” he mused, leaving the thought incomplete.

This was not, after all, the campaign Biden expected to be running. Despite warnings from advisers and family members that a 2020 race would be unlike any past race, Biden assumed that his eight years as Vice President would position him as the natural heir of Obama, that donors would fall into place, that activists would have the same affection for him that they had for Obama, and that the Democratic Party’s rules would favor a hard-working pol who has done the chicken-dinner circuit since the ’70s. Instead, Biden confronted a Democratic electorate that, at least in some quarters, seemed ready to turn the page.

Monday night in Iowa ended in something of a recurring nightmare for the long-time presidential hopeful. Biden, who has tried and failed to win the Iowa caucuses twice before—in 1988 and 2008—ended the day by giving a speech near a precinct that, after failing to push him above the viability threshold, awarded a symbolic victory to Cory Booker, who is no longer even in the race.

Privately, Biden’s campaign staff acknowledged the blow that Iowa’s lackluster showing had dealt the once high-flying candidate, and even his most ardent defenders admitted they didn’t see “Joe-mentum” on the horizon. But publicly, his backers doubled down with an air of confidence: the former Vice President, they reminded reporters, has strong name recognition, enjoys an implicit endorsement former President Barack Obama and he alone appears to have lodged himself in President Donald Trump’s craw as a feared rival.

The Biden campaign does not need to be shiny to win. Hillary Clinton’s campaign employed a grind-it-out approach to defeat Sanders, which eventually paid off. Still, Biden entered the race as the candidate to beat, and as he heads into Friday’s debate near Manchester, N.H., he needs to figure out how to regain his edge.

[newsbiteswithjennysok]

Oct 30, 2019

1. A Hollywood charity event used Keanu Reeves’ name to sell pricey tickets — saying “The Matrix” icon would attend and be honored — but Reeves had never heard of the organization, wasn’t meant to go, and was even shopping at Whole Foods as the gala went on.

Global Charity Initiative, which says it aims to “eradicate poverty on a global scale by empowering people to take charge of their lives, primarily by achieving a shift in mindset,” prominently put Reeves on its invite to an event last Sunday at the Beverly Hilton.

The organization also promoted Reeves’ attendance on social media with his image and the garbled come-on, “Join some Hollywood finest actors like Chadwick Bosman [sic] and Keanu humble and lover humanity supporting GCI to eradicate poverty.” A Facebook post said tickets cost up to $1,000, and an attendee told us that many guests purchased them for a chance to be in a room with the “John Wick” star.  The source told us that the gala also auctioned off a painting of Reeves at the event.

But Reeves was not there, and his rep told us, “He knew nothing about the event and has no affiliation with this organization whatsoever. And they used his image without permission.” A Twitter user even said they spotted Reeves at a Whole Foods while the event was going on. We’re told that actress Eugenia Kuzmina — who stars in the upcoming series “Spy City” — was set to give an award to Reeves, but that she left when something “felt off.”

A celeb who was promoted — and did turn up — was “Black Panther” star Chadwick Boseman. While a source told us that Boseman “left after five minutes,” there are several images of the actor at the event.Boseman also appears in several photos posing with the foundation’s head, Gershom Sikaala, a self-published author who claims he has an “honorary” doctorate from online seminary United Graduate College and Seminary and that he’s a UN Goodwill Ambassador. Reps for Boseman and for the charity did not comment.

2. Cat Marnell is a whole new person. After releasing her popular memoir, “How to Murder Your Life,” the former fashion editor and admitted drug addict moved to Europe and never looked back. Now healthier than ever, Marnell opened up to Page Six about the trials and tribulations of her drug-riddled past and how she managed to get it all together to become “too healthy.”“I’m not entirely sober but listen—all these healthy trendy chicks micro-dosing and smoking weed out in LA are taking more drugs than I am!” Marnell told us via email.

“Adderall might as well have been arsenic—to my mental health, anyway. I haven’t taken a smidgen of Adderall in over two years,” she said of the ADD medication, which she used to abuse. As a result, the writer says she’s healthier than ever. “My health is soo good. TOO good! I’m too focused. Exercise is the most important thing in my life,” she shared, adding that she works out with Beth Cooke at Sky Ting Yoga in New York, and uses KICHGO, a portable fitness kit and video plan designed by Jennifer Lawrence’s trainer, Kit Rich, when she’s traveling. That said, Marnell still does use focus medication, though this time around she’s regulating it.

“I take a different amphetamine now, in a very controlled dose that doesn’t get me high or affect my sleep,” she explained. “I don’t doctor shop or mess around. I don’t touch illegal drugs and I rarely get drunk. You gotta protect your energy and your brain and your spirit like they are precious jewels.

“I have too much dope stuff coming up in my life to mess with that anymore.”

Marnell told us Sony TriStar is planning to turn her memoir into a TV series. She also just released the Audible Original titled “Self-Tanner for the Soul: How I Ran Away to Europe and Found My Inner Glow (When Life Got Dark),”

Although she’s found herself strapped for cash at various times throughout her European journeys, she admitted she’s worked more than she lets on to her fans.

“I’ll tell you a secret: not everything that I do for money has my name on it!” she teased. “Too much pressure. I suck at pressure.”

3. Actor and comedian Kevin Hart on Tuesday shared emotional video footage of his recovery process after he nearly died in a car crash in September. Hart, who reportedly fractured his spine in three places in the crash, shared the footage of his rehab process on his Instagram page.

“When God talks, you got to listen,” Hart says over the footage, which shows him taking steps with a walker as health aides on both sides guide him. “In this case, I honestly feel like God told me to sit down. You know, you’re moving too fast, you’re doing too much sometimes you can’t see the things you’re meant to see.”

In the Sept. 1 crash, Jared Black was driving Hart’s 1970 Plymouth Barracuda in Los Angeles when he accelerated into a turn on Mulholland Highway and lost control of the car, the California Highway Patrol said. The car slid down an embankment and slammed into a tree, authorities said. Hart was a passenger in the car along with Black’s fiancee, Rebecca Broxterman, police said. Hart and Black suffered serious back injuries, while Broxterman had minor injuries.“

After my accident, I see things differently. I see things from a whole new perspective,” Hart says in the video released Tuesday. “My appreciation for life is through the roof. So don’t take today for granted because tomorrow’s not promised.”

4. John Cena said he is donating half a million dollars to the first responders battling the California wildfires. “In times like this, when people are giving their lives and working around the clock, what they need from us is resource,” Cena, 42, said in a video posted on Twitter Monday. “This is the right thing to do and I’m doing my part to help the cause.”

The actor made the $500,000 pledge in honor of his new comedy, “Playing With Fire,” which is centered around a team of firefighters tasked with babysitting three young siblings. He asked Paramount Players, the production company behind his film, to pick a charity that “aids our first responders as soon as possible.”

“California is in dire straits. It is burning,” Cena added. “It is under siege from massive wildfires statewide, which means our first responders are working around the clock and they need our help.” The former WWE star also asked fans to join him in donating, saying, “I’m asking that today on #FirstRespondersDay we do everything we can to help those who risk their lives to protect us all. The California wildfires have reportedly forced more than 200,000 people to flee their homes, and over 2.5 million are without power. California Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency Sunday as a result of the Kincade Fire. More than 3,000 firefighters have worked to get it in under control.

5. Kanye West, who released his latest album “Jesus Is King” last week, claims Democrats have “brainwashed” African-Americans — and are making them “abort” their children.

The 42-year-old rapper and fervent supporter of President Trump spoke with radio host Big Boy on Friday as part of his promotion of the long-delayed, gospel-inspired album.“ We’re [black Americans] brainwashed out here, bro. Come on, man. This is a free man talking. Democrats had us voting [for] Democrats with food stamps for years,” Yeezy said when asked about those who think he has turned his back on the black community.

“What are you talking about? Guns in the ’80s, taking the fathers out the home, Plan B, lowering our votes, making us abort our children … Thou shall not kill,” he continued. The hip-hop star appeared to confuse Plan B, the morning-after pill emergency contraception, with abortions that end existing pregnancies.

When pressed about his support for the president, he said: “I’d rather deal with somebody who call me the n-word to my face than a person that signed me for a lifetime deal on a 255-page contract. I’d rather know what I’m dealing with.”

Big Boy asked West whether he has considered that his support for Trump could be viewed as a tacit endorsement of racism. “The most racist thing a person can tell me is that I’m supposed to choose something based on my race,” he responded. “I’m not telling nobody not to vote Democrat,” he said, adding bizarrely: “I love Obama, I love lemonade, I love Wingstop, I love Polos, I love Jordans.”

And when asked if he feared losing his audience, West insisted that he is “only afraid of God.” “I’m only afraid of my daddy, God. I done been 15 years. I’m telling you that God is showing you that you can have your own thoughts, bro. I been canceled before,” he continued.

During the wide-ranging interview, West also revealed that he has no plans to ever perform his old songs live again — though he did say that, “We can play that beat, but I’m going to adjust [the lyrics.]” He added: “They made movies about Steve Jobs so y’all could understand who I am. “Now, when you go to the Apple store, I don’t be seeing no iPod 4 . . . Take you to eBay and get you the old Kanye and get you a vintage iPod 4 while you’re at it, a Sega 8-bit.”

[silkclient90-blog]

The Voice Performance Finale Recap: Did Maelyn Jarmon Sound Unbeatable?

RELATED STORIES

Ahead of Monday’s Season 16 Finals of The Voice, I was feeling pretty — eh, make that extremely — eh, make that totally sure that Maelyn Jarmon was a lock to win. Why? For starters, she’d been the standout after the Blinds (and even topped TVLine’s countdown of the most promising auditioners). Over the course of the season, she’d never gotten a grade that was less than a B+. She’d consistently topped TVLine’s “Who gave the best performance?” polls. And unlike Blake Shelton’s country boys, she was in a lane of her own. All she had to do was not trip herself up in her last performances. Even if she did, I suspected she could still beat the guys. (On the other hand, I thought there was no way that Season 15’s Kennedy Holmes could lose, either… ) How’d Maelyn and Team Blake fare? Read on, we’ll discuss, then you can offer your predictions in the comments.

Original Single Maelyn Jarmon (Team Legend), “Wait for You” — Grade: A- | Maelyn’s single, which she told us reminded her of her faraway boyfriend, landed squarely in the vein of singer-songwriter-y pop classics like Natasha Bedingfield’s “Unwritten” (though with a bit more energy than that particular number). It wasn’t hard to imagine “Wait for You” being the theme to whatever the next Dawson’s Creek might be; it was that sorta anthem. Needless to say, Maelyn sang the living daylights out of it. There were a couple of moments that veered a little close to pitchy, but overall, this was typical Maelyn. In other words, gorgeous.

Duet With Coach Andrew Sevener and Blake Shelton, “All Right Now” — Andrew’s Grade: B+ | After Blake told us that his first impression of Andrew was damn, what a sexy voice, the two of them took to the stage, and Andrew came alive. They didn’t really gel when they sang together on the choruses, but when Andrew sang by himself, it was clear that he was trying to wake us up and shake us up — mission accomplished. There was a lotta extra gravel in his vocal, and I loved it. Overall, the Free cover was just kinda eh, but I majorly appreciated the oomph that Andrew gave it (as well as the room that Blake gave his contestant to shine).

Cover Dexter Roberts (Team Blake), “Anything Goes” — Grade: A | Before Dexter went on, Blake suggested that this Randy Houser song was the ideal choice for him, because he tends to really pour his heart into a performance, and this one has a whole lotta heart — broken, but still. On stage, Dexter sounded entirely radio-ready; like, they could just slap this performance unsweetened on iTunes, and nobody would bat an eyelash. What I especially loved about it was that there was a one-whiskey-too-many quality to his voice. He sounded like a man ruined — and I mean that as a compliment. He didn’t just sing the ballad, he inhabited it, and the result was a thing of crushing beauty.

Duet With Coach Gyth Rigdon and Blake Shelton, “Take It Easy” — Gyth’s Grade: B- | Before the duo took to the stage with the Travis Tritt version of The Eagles classic, Blake praised Gyth’s “willingness to embrace the Amish culture with the beard.” Ha. When the spotlight fell on them, Gyth looked like he was having a blast and acquitted himself nicely. But there was just no way that his voice was gonna stack up against Blake’s, even if Blake wasn’t trying to show off (which he wasn’t). Blake could walk through a song and still sound like a million bucks. Gyth, while a fine singer, has a thinner, less memorable voice, simple as that. He sounds like a good backup singer, not a future superstar. So of the country boys, Dexter was definitely the frontrunner for me at this point.

Original Single Andrew Sevener (Team Blake), “Rural Route Raising” — Grade: B | “The music is kinda what I wanna do as an artist,” said Andrew while recording his rollicking single with Blake. Right off the bat, it was gonna be hard for me not to be distracted by the fact that Andrew kept pronouncing “rural” as a one-syllable word. On stage, he started off kinda restrained, but I hoped that was OK; it would give him somewhere to go with the number. And it did build as it went along, leading to a chorus that reminded me totally of some other song. (Anyone else get that feeling? I couldn’t think of the song, though.) Anyway, this was good, but I didn’t think Andrew was gonna win over, say, any Dexter fans with a performance whose smoke mostly came from the fog machines, not his voice. This needed to have more fire for him to have a chance at the title.

Duet With Coach Maelyn Jarmon and John Legend, “Unforgettable” — Maelyn’s Grade: A | When John started singing, I totally heard what Maelyn had been talking about before they hit the stage: He really does sound like Nat King Cole. Maelyn’s vocal was as silky-smooth as the evening gown she was wearing (though I wouldn’t have objected if her mic had been turned up a smidgen). By the time they were through, I was thinking that this might be the best duet cover of a classic since Kristin Chenoweth and Matthew Morrison’s “A House Is Not a Home” on Glee once upon a time.

Cover Gyth Rigdon (Team Blake), “Once in a Blue Moon” — Grade: C | In rehearsal, Gyth felt the pressure. It had been nerve-racking enough for him to do a song of his coach’s, but to do a song by his coach’s hero, the late Earl Thomas Conley? Yikes. I felt for him. And I really wanted to love this — it played to Gyth’s strength, emotional ballads. But I kinda didn’t even like it. He wasn’t horrible — this wasn’t a Talon Cardon situation or anything. Gyth just lacked the confidence, not to mention the vocal chops, to really do the number justice. Tellingly, Kelly Clarkson said more about the song and Gyth’s tux than she did about his singing.

Original Single Dexter Roberts (Team Blake), “Looking Back” — Grade: A | When Dexter was in the studio working on his single with Blake, I thought it sounded like a smash — like it coulda been a No. 1 for Aerosmith. On stage, the number started off a little mumbly, but there was no denying that chorus — it was massive, and Dexter sounded flippin’ tremendous on it. On top of that, he looked on stage like he knew, “Yeah, this is working.” He was totally in the zone. So much so, as a matter of fact, that I was starting to think hmm, maybe that win for Maelyn wasn’t quite such a lock. After the performance, Blake said that he thought Dexter was the most ready of all the contestants to record an album and become a megastar.

Cover Andrew Sevener (Team Blake), “Lips of an Angel” — Grade: C | Holy Waylon Jennings, I do love Andrew’s voice; it sounds as well-worn as your favorite pair of jeans. Still, I worried when he told his coach in rehearsal that he wasn’t going to attack Hinder’s song as he usually would but go for a more emotional approach. And it turned out I was right to worry. The idea was sound. Unfortunately, Andrew was a little off. And even if he’d sung it perfectly, the number didn’t have the energy or the “wow” factor to lure any votes away from the frontrunners. “You’re having a breakout night tonight,” Blake told Andrew afterward. But as big a fan of Andrew’s as I am, all I could think was, “A breakout night? As in break out the beer, because he won’t be winning Tuesday?”

Duet With Coach Dexter Roberts and Blake Shelton, “Hard-Workin’ Man” — Dexter’s Grade: A- | I might be Team Maelyn, but especially after Monday, I can’t say that Dexter wouldn’t make an absolutely credible victor. And his performance with his coach just dropped an exclamation point at the tail end of that thought. Tackling Brooks & Dunn with Blake, Dexter sounded as casual as his mentor. Like, “Yup, I always sound this good, no big whoop. We’re just having some fun up here.” And he certainly looked like he was having fun. That combo in my mind is money in the bank — and it could lead to an upset Tuesday.

Original Single Gyth Rigdon (Team Blake), “Proof I’ve Always Loved You” — Grade: B+ | Credit where it’s due: The single Gyth wrote was solid — and smart, too. As you’d hope he would, he played to his strengths, not challenging himself vocally to stretch any further than he comfortably could. So this was his strongest vocal of the night. On top of that, the rapid-fire parts of the number were edgy and cool, like he was occasionally an alt-country auctioneer or something. I still don’t think, vocally, he’s any competition for Dexter. But this was pretty damn good.

Cover Maelyn Jarmon (Team Legend), “Hallelujah” — Grade: A+ | Well, if you wanna show that you’re a singer with a capital S, Leonard Cohen’s classic is the song to do it with! “I felt the pain,” said her coach as she packed the number with longing in rehearsal. On stage, Maelyn sounded like she had a trophy case full of Grammys at home — or soon would. She sang with an emotion that drew me in (and made me freaking cry, no less!) and a precision that made me think future studio engineers working on her records were going to love her — how much easier could she make their jobs?!? There’d be nothing to fix! Needless to say, I hereby take back everything I said previously about Dexter being a viable winner; it has to be Maelyn. Has. To.

So, who stood out for you overall Monday? Vote in the poll below, then hit the comments with the order you think the Final Four will finish in. (Good as Dexter was, I’m still going with: 4. Gyth. 3. Andrew. 2. Dexter. 1. Maelyn.)

Take Our Poll

Source: https://tvline.com/2019/05/20/the-voice-recap-top-4-performances-maelyn-jarmon-dexter-roberts/

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): Our topic for today: PANIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Namely, is it time for Republicans to panic (in the wake of Tuesday’s Democratic sweep)? And, as a subsidiary question, what should Republicans do now?

But let’s start with that first question … panic or no panic? You decide!

harry (Harry Enten, senior political writer): What’s the definition of panic?

micah:

harry: LOL.

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): Panic. Losing control of the House would be huge. And it’s very much on the table.

clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): Well, some House Republicans from Virginia are retiring after the state election, so they might well be panicking.

It's my honor to represent #VA06. I cannot begin to express how blessed I am to have had the opportunity to serve. Now is the right time to step aside – I will not seek re-election. My statement: https://t.co/tByoe5vFmO

— Bob Goodlatte (@RepGoodlatte) November 9, 2017

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): They should be moderately panicked. And they should have been before Tuesday. They might still be able to save the House, though.

harry: Yeah, Tuesday was simply a manifestation of what has been apparent in the national polls for a while. Heck, it’s also been apparent in the special-election results. I just don’t think people believed it before seeing it on a big stage like on Tuesday night. Make no mistake, this was in line with the fundamentals, and those are not good for Republicans. Bad enough to lose the House? We’ll see. The Democrats are certainly in position.

natesilver: “We’ll see.”

Give me a prediction!

micah: “We’ll see” doesn’t sound that panic-inducing.

clare.malone: I’m still not sure the Republicans are going to lose the House. That’s still a pretty big lift for Democrats. Tuesday’s results were a good sign for them, for sure. But it’s still a long haul.

micah: Yeah, so a Democrat won in New Jersey. A Democrat won in Virginia. Democrats won a bunch of districts in the Virginia House of Delegates that mostly leaned Democratic. What’s the big deal?

clare.malone: ha ha ha

micah: I mean, I’m only half trolling.

natesilver: It’s not a particularly big deal. It’s just confirmation of lots of evidence we already had that the political climate is good for Democrats.

It’s about what you’d expect when they’re up 8 to 10 points on the generic ballot. But the special elections earlier in the year were also about what you’d expect given those numbers.

(And given that the specials were held in very red districts.)

micah: But then why didn’t Democrats win more red districts in Virginia?

natesilver: They won the governorship by 9 points and flipped the House of Delegates from 2-1 GOP to roughly 50-50. They had a really good night.

micah: I’m not debating that.

natesilver: The focus on red districts is kinda dumb, IMO, because if you look at the totality of elections so far this year, Democrats have done well in some really red areas — Kansas and Montana and South Carolina — that aren’t upscale or suburban at all.

micah: Are you calling me dumb?

harry: Yes.

LOL.

natesilver: I’m saying that analysts in general are chewing too much on not-especially-informative pieces of evidence.

The totality of evidence is good for Democrats. The individual data points aren’t that meaningful.

micah: So we don’t buy the thesis that “state/districts/etc. are snapping back to their default partisanship” — it explains Tuesday’s results but not all those special-election results.

natesilver: Yeah, it explains Virginia well, but there have been a lot of elections this year.

perry: Well, whether Democrats have a 70, 50 or 30 percent chance of winning the House, even 30 (which I think is a low estimate) is a really big panic number for Republicans. Barack Obama’s presidency, in terms of legislation, basically ended the day Republicans won the House in 2010. And Obama didn’t have a special prosecutor after him, with the potential of an impeachment in the House.

natesilver: I disagree that 30 is a big number, Perry. I mean, the majority always has some risk of being lost in the House, since every seat is up every two years. If the chances of losing the House were only 30 percent, I’d be pretty happy if I were Paul Ryan.

The problem for the GOP is that it’s not 30 percent. You could debate between 50 and 70.

perry: I don’t think in, say, 2014 that the Republicans had any real chance of losing the House. It would have been like 10 percent.

natesilver: I guess I should say — the majority party is always at risk if they also control the presidency.

Typically, parties do not control both the House and the presidency for very long.

So if I knew nothing about the political landscape other than that the same party controlled both the presidency and the House, my default might be that the party had like a 30 percent chance of losing the House at the next midterm.

harry: What we’re fighting against here is that people almost always view things through the prism of the last election. Yes, Nathaniel, the political science says what you say, but people get caught in this mindset that this will be the time the science is wrong. (Sometimes it is wrong.) But usually what happens is you end up looking foolish by trying to guess the direction of the polling error.

micah: So, do the contours of Ralph Northam’s win in Virginia matter in judging how panicked the GOP should be?

Like, where did he do well and with whom?

clare.malone: They’ve lost some of the suburban white voters who voted for Trump, right? Which should worry them a bit.

natesilver: Yeah, I think all that shit is overrated.

micah: Wait, Nate, you wrote the other day that there are enough well-educated, relatively well-off suburban districts for Democrats to retake the House.

natesilver: There are enough suburban districts, yeah. So it happens to be true that doing well in the suburbs is more helpful for winning back the House than for winning back the presidency. That isn’t immaterial.

harry: It hurts me when people use bad language.

clare.malone: How much evidence is there, though, that Democrats made inroads with ye olde working class whites?

micah: Right.

clare.malone: Let’s hear it for George W. Bush’s Security/Soccer Moms.

perry: Did we agree with this piece by Nate Cohn of The New York Times that argued that the Democrats still have some problems with white working-class voters that could limit their pickup opportunities next year?

natesilver: I disagree with trying to extract too many signals from Virginia as opposed to the totality of all elections in the past several months.

But Democrats had a pretty “meh” performance earlier this year in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, which is very suburban and wealthy. Whereas what they did in Montana and Kansas and South Carolina is pretty impressive. Here’s a chart from earlier this week (before we had the Tuesday results):

clare.malone: Yeah, but wait, Nate — wasn’t the whole thing that they vastly outperformed there, even while losing?

natesilver: They outperformed more in Montana, Kansas and South Carolina than in Georgia.

I mean, it depends on what benchmark you look at. But the Georgia 6 result was probably the least impressive of any of them.

harry: To quote myself, “To understand the national political environment, it’s always better to look at an average of elections.”

clare.malone: Very Churchillian.

perry: Lol.

natesilver: At least Georgia was a federal race, though! State and local races can give you a sense of the overall political environment. But you should be very careful about getting too cute beyond that. The issues that are pertinent in voting for someone for the Virginia House of Delegates are not the same ones that are pertinent when you’re voting for the U.S. Congress.

micah: I guess, here’s why I would push back on your “overrated” take, Nate. It seems clear that winning back the House will be harder for Democrats than winning the Virginia House of Delegates. (Actually, is that true?) If that is true — or even if it it’s the same — it seems valuable to know the political/demographic/socio-economic makeup of potential pickups for Democrats in the House. What does that sample of seats look like? Isn’t that important given how polarized we are along rural-urban lines? Along racial lines? Etc.?

harry: Oh, I’m not sure that’s true at all.

natesilver: I’m telling you that extrapolating from the Virginia House of Delegates to the U.S. House is dumb.

Also, I don’t agree that winning the U.S. House is necessarily harder. The Virginia House of Delegates is way more gerrymandered than the U.S. House, even though the U.S. House is pretty gerrymandered.

perry: So I would say Panic 8 on a scale of 1 to 10. It sounds like others would rate the Republican panic levels lower?

micah: I’d say 6.8.

harry: I panic over the Buffalo Bills and Columbia Lions. I don’t panic over politics.

natesilver: I’m a 7.8 or something. Not far from Perry.

micah: We’re not interested in how panicked you are, Harry. We’re asking how panicked Republicans should be.

natesilver: But if I’m a 7.8 today, I was a 7.5 on Monday.

clare.malone: I hate how we have to apply numbers to everything.

It’s a 6.

harry: I’ll say 8 is fine.

micah: OK, so now let’s talk: What should Republicans do?!?!?!?

clare.malone: I’m wondering what candidates need to do out in the field. For example, did Ed Gillespie do something weird in not “reading the room” in Virginia — should he have been playing more to those suburban voters?

micah: Gillespie, former head of the Republican National Committee, tried to adopt some Trumpian trappings.

In general, should Republicans just hug Trump close knowing they’re tied to him anyway?

Or should they distance themselves from him?

harry: Why the heck would you embrace a president whose approval rating is in the 30s?

clare.malone: Is it a state-by-state thing — i.e., some states are “Trumpy” and some are not?

natesilver: But what if Republicans not embracing Trump makes his approval rating even lower?

micah: And also you get dinged for having an R next to your name anyway?

Does distancing ever work?

natesilver: Maybe that’s why so many members are retiring. They’re sort of screwed either way.

harry: I guess it depends on whether you’ve cultivated an image of your own brand. In waves, oftentimes it doesn’t work.

I was somewhat surprised Gillespie didn’t try that given he had run before statewide. But he probably had polling that his campaign thought showed they should run hardline on immigration.

perry: Distancing can work. Rob Portman and John McCain ran ahead of Trump in 2016.

micah: But Gillespie’s hardline immigration rhetoric didn’t lead to a rural surge like it did for Trump, right?

natesilver: I think you could say it was more high turnout in blue areas than low turnout in red areas.

clare.malone: Maybe voters found that stuff inauthentic coming from Gillespie? If you were a hardcore Trump voter, you sensed that Gillespie was not your guy. That he stank of the establishment, the past.

harry: I thought it was inauthentic.

micah: Yeah. That’s a good point. It’s possible a lot of Republicans will take away from Virginia that the Trumpian immigration stuff hurts more than it helps, but maybe that was just the messenger.

perry: I do think that sanctuary cities is an issue where Democrats are a bit confused. And maybe Republicans should hit that issue, even if other things Gillespie did will not work.

clare.malone: Yeah, interesting point

natesilver: We did have that interesting test of Trumpian personality versus Trump’s endorsement in Alabama, too.

perry: This is a hard question. If I were running against Sen. Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, I would run on the Trump immigration/populism issues. If I’m Barbara Comstock, in a Virginia district just outside of D.C., I would distance.

natesilver: By the way, the fact that Democrats are running somewhat competitively in Alabama, depending on what poll you believe — even before allegations surfaced that GOP nominee Roy Moore initiated sexual encounters with underage girls — is another reason not to take the “this is only happening in blue areas” talking point all that seriously.

micah: That’s why my panic number wasn’t that high — if Democrats win Alabama, then we’ll see real panic!

clare.malone: Yeah, that race — could be a December to remember, people!

harry: I mean, even the worst public polls have Doug Jones down only 11 percentage points. It’ll be interesting to see what occurs there.

micah: Panic-ember

perry: Roy Moore is uniquely something that I think most Republican candidates are not.

micah: Very uniquely something.

clare.malone: Even before The Washington Post report on Thursday, Moore had a lot of baggage in Alabama — enough that I think a lot more moderate Republicans there would not be enthused to cast a ballot for him.

micah: OK, before we turn to policy, it seems like one of our takeaways from Virginia is that voters aren’t stupid — you can’t distance yourself from Trump if you’re really Trumpy, and you can’t run an anti-establishment campaign if you used to run the RNC.

perry: That wasn’t my takeaway. I don’t think Corey Stewart would have won either. He might have lost by more. I don’t think a Trumpy person will win statewide in Virginia.

natesilver: Trump ran, quite successfully, as a populist, even though he’s a rich real estate developer from New York City. So authenticity is always somewhat in the eye of the beholder.

But yeah — Politics 101 if you’re Gillespie is that you want to localize that race, and Northam’s the one who should have tried to nationalize it.

clare.malone: Hey, Harry, what’s that new poll that has Democrat Kyrsten Sinema up by a healthy margin in Arizona’s Senate race against Trumpy Republican Kelli Ward?

harry: Here it is, Clare.

clare.malone: I think the Trumpy thing doesn’t always work outside the primaries for … non-Trumps?

perry: I think Gillespie was trying to do something that I think is smart: Try to hit the Trumpy Republicans with one message, the more white-collar ones with another. Gillespie’s speeches and campaign appearances were not Trumpy. His ads were. He was campaigning with Susana Martinez and Marco Rubio a few days before the election. I actually think increased Trumpiness without full-Trump is probably where most GOP candidates land in 2018.

micah: Interesting …

clare.malone: Not to be very American, but … doesn’t TV often matter more, at least in state races? Not everyone’s going to be seeing you in person.

perry: Of course.

But I’m just saying that Ed was not going around saying “build the wall” in his speeches.

clare.malone: Yeah, fair.

I just think even in the D.C. ‘burbs, those ads hurt him.

perry: I agree.

micah: OK …

Last thing: Policy.

Should Republicans stay full-steam ahead on taxes?

What should they do? Go more bipartisan?

natesilver: I don’t think they should go full-steam on their tax bill, no. Because it’s a fairly toxic bill, politically.

A Bush-style tax cut would have been much smarter politically.

perry: They should write a tax plan that Sen. Joe Manchin, Sen. Joe Donnelly and maybe eight to 10 other Democrats can vote for. A bill with 60 Senate votes would be huge.

harry: I like Perry’s thinking.

perry: So I’m saying what Nate said. The Bush tax cuts got some Democratic votes because they were not written in this way that was bound to draw heavy Democratic opposition.

I have been shocked by how many people’s taxes would increase in a REPUBLICAN tax plan.

harry: How many times have they rewritten that tax plan in the past couple of weeks?

clare.malone: But … how likely are Republicans to make that play for Democratic support?

perry: 0 percent.

harry: As Nate said, this stuff is really unpopular. It’s not good for Republicans.

natesilver: Some people’s taxes would increase — most people’s wouldn’t — but moreover, the benefits of the bill aren’t obvious to taxpayers. Maybe you come out ahead, and maybe you don’t, but you have to do the math to find out how — and a lot of popular deductions are removed, all in the name of lowering corporate taxes.

perry: The realistic path for Republicans is to pass this tax bill somewhat quickly. Don’t spend till March debating it. Get this done. It will not be very popular. But cast this as a sign that you are getting things done. Then, get more things done. Find bills that can pass. You tried on Obamacare. You did taxes. Now, find issues where you can pass a bill and it benefits you electorally. Infrastructure. Dreamers?

I think a bug in my plan is I’m struggling to think of issues that have popular support and on which Republicans agree internally.

micah: I guess I don’t really get why it seems like both 1. Republicans are very likely on track to lose a bunch of seats and maybe the House majority, and 2. Republicans are very unlikely to change anything they’re doing policy-wise.

clare.malone: I mean, Republicans are doing this tax bill thing so they can get money from donors — so that they can even run their races in the first place.

natesilver: Well, they failed to do anything on health care — for a lot of reasons — but you can argue that reflects a responsiveness toward public opinion.

micah:

Lindsey Graham says “the financial contributions will stop” if tax reform fails.

— Alan Rappeport (@arappeport) November 9, 2017

perry: Saying this out loud is not smart.

harry: What a performance.

natesilver: On taxes, the donor base likes the bill, but I don’t know that the voter base has any particular reason to.

micah: Final thoughts?

perry: Final thought: The Republicans should have been worried about 2018 before Tuesday, and Tuesday should make them even more worried.

But I actually don’t know how realistic it is to expect them to change course. Trump is going to Trump. They have a voter base that likes Trumpism. They have members in Congress and a donor base that likes unpopular policies. And they are internally divided on politics and policy, making it hard to shift course.

harry: Republicans have got to figure out something because what they’re doing right now isn’t working. Even if they don’t lose the House, their majority will probably be greatly diminished. That, of course, will only make it more difficult to pass legislation.

natesilver: I think the most important decisions that Republicans made already happened: The approach they took to health care, the approach they’re taking toward taxes, their failure to do anything on infrastructure, etc.

I’m not saying the cake is necessarily baked — there’s a lot of uncertainty, and there are going to be new things to react to all the time, since the president is Donald Trump. But I don’t think there’s any magic plan to avoid a Democratic wave. It may be out of their control. They just have to hope Trump matures a bit in his second year in office, the economy stays pretty good, Democrats give them an opening or two, etc.

But they’re running into the wind, as parties almost are when they’re trying to defend Congress and their president is unpopular.

[patriotsnet]

Did Republicans Shut Down The Government

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/did-republicans-shut-down-the-government/

Did Republicans Shut Down The Government

Shutdown 10: November 10 To 14 1983

Obama: GOP Shut Down Government Because “They Didn’t Like One Law”

President: Ronald Reagan

Senate: Republicans , Majority Leader Howard Baker

House: Democrats , Speaker Tip ONeill

Why: A variety of issues this time: House Democrats wanted more education funding, more aid for Israel and Egypt, less aid to Syria and El Salvador, and less defense spending than Reagan did. The two parties reached a compromise in which the MX missile was funded, and Democrats got a lot less money for education and secured their defense and foreign cuts, along with a ban on oil and gas drilling on federal animal refuges.

Us Faces Risk Of Government Shutdown As Trump Balks At Covid

Andy SullivanSteve Holland

WASHINGTON, Dec 23 – Americanson Wednesday faced the prospect of a government shutdown during a pandemic as outgoing President Donald Trump, angry at his fellow Republicans in Congress, threatened not to sign a $2.3 trillion government funding and coronavirus aid package.

The package, including $892 billion for relief from the coronavirus crisis, ended months of negotiations between congressional Republicans and Democrats.

It also pays for government operations through September 2021, so if Trump blocks it then large parts of the U.S. government will start to shut down next week for lack of funds.

Trump, in a video posted to social media on Tuesday evening, surprised some of his closest officials by demanding the bill be revised to include $2,000 payments to each American, more than triple the $600 per person included in it.

A source familiar with the situation said aides thought they had talked Trump out of the $2,000 demand last week, only to learn he had not given up when he posted the video. That surprised even his Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, who took part in the talks and backed the $600 figure.

Trump was irked when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in Congress, last week acknowledged Democrat Joe Biden’s defeat of Trump in their November election contest, another source said. Biden is due to take office on Jan. 20.

DEMOCRATS SAY READY

McCarthy’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Watch Trump Pelosi Schumer Clash Over Border Wall Funding

After Trump invited reporters to sit in for a testy exchange at his first meeting in more than a year with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday, the Democrats teed him up to shoulder the credit or the blame if the money runs out and the government is forced to close down.

Pelosi, a California Democrat who is expected to become House speaker in January, referred in the meeting to a partial government closure as the “Trump shutdown.”

Schumer, a New York Democrat, told Trump “you want to shut it down. You keep talking about it.”

Trump took the bait.

“If we don’t get what we want, one way or the other … I will shut down the government. Absolutely,” he said. “I am proud to shut down the government for border security.”

Later, Trump told reporters that he was happy to take responsibility for a partial pause in government operations. It was “Chuck’s problem” when the government briefly shut down early in the year, Trump said.

“It was his idea, and he got killed,” Trump said, either unaware or unconcerned that he was putting himself in the same position as Schumer was in less than a year ago. “He doesn’t want to own it.”

“I’ll take it,” Trump added. “I will take it because we’re closing it down for border security, and I think I win that every single time.”

But there’s reason for Republicans who care about the broader public perception of the party’s ability to govern and to expand its base to worry about his tactics.

Shutdown 14: December 18 To 20 1987

President: Ronald Reagan

Senate: Democrats , Majority Leader Robert Byrd

House: Democrats , Speaker Jim Wright

Why: Congressional Democrats were resisting further funding for the Contras in Nicaragua, and insisted on reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, a Federal Communications Commission rule that had recently been abandoned, which required broadcasters to show balanced perspectives on political issues. Democrats lost on the Fairness Doctrine, and agreed to nonlethal aid to the Contras.

List Of Federal Shutdowns

This list includes only major funding gaps which led to actual employee furloughs within federal departments of the US government. It does not include funding gaps that did not involve shutdowns of government departments, in which examples include: a brief funding gap in 1982, in which nonessential workers were told to report to work but to cancel meetings and not perform their ordinary duties; a three-day funding gap in November 1983 that did not disrupt government services; and a 9-hour funding gap in February 2018 that did not disrupt government services.

The 1980 shutdown was the first time a federal agency shut down due to a budget dispute, with around 1,600 federal workers for the FTC being furloughed as a result, and Federal Marshals deployed to some FTC facilities to enforce their closure. The shutdown ended after one day when Carter threatened to close down the entire US government if Congress did not pass spending bills by 1 October later that year, with economists of the time estimating that the 1-day shutdown of the FTC cost the government around $700,000, the majority of which was towards back pay for the furloughed workers. In the aftermath of the shutdown, Civiletti issued a revised edition of his original opinion on 18 January 1981, detailing that shutdowns would still require agencies that protect human safety or property to continue operating if funding for them expired.

1981, 1984, and 1986

Shutdown 7: November 20 To 23 1981

President: Ronald Reagan

Senate: Republicans , Majority Leader Howard Baker

House: Democrats , Speaker Tip ONeill

Why: This was the first shutdown, in the current sense of the term, when federal government functions were seriously curtailed. Reagan furloughed 241,000 federal workers, the first time a funding gap had led to so severe a reduction in the federal governments operations. Reagan had demanded $8.4 billion in domestic spending cuts and promised to veto any bill that didnt include at least half of that amount in cuts. The Senate was willing to comply, but the House insisted on bigger defense cuts and on pay increases for itself and the civil service.

The two branches reached a deal that fell $2 billion short of Reagans threshold, so he vetoed the deal and shut down the government. The shutdown ended quickly after Congress passed a continuing resolution for a little less than a month, giving them time to negotiate.

Empathy For Federal Workers

Walden is the only Republican in Congress from Oregon, representing a district that Trump won by 19 percentage points. Although his bid for a 12th term wasn’t close, his 57 percent win was his smallest general election victory.

Walden led the campaign arm of House Republicans in the 2014 and 2016 elections and votes with Republicans more than 90 percent of the time. But as the new Congress convened last week, Walden said he looked forward “to reaching across the aisle to find bipartisan solutions.”

Of his votes to reopen parts of the government, Walden said he has empathy for federal workers and their families caught up in the impasse.

“We know not many people can afford to miss a paycheck,” Walden said.

Contributing: Eliza Collins.

Congress Races To Avoid Government Shutdown Amid Pandemic As Funding Expires

Parties face first major test of ability to cooperate since election, with funding to run out on 11 December

The US Congress on Monday began a two-week sprint to rescue the federal government from a possible shutdown amid the coronavirus pandemic, the first major test since the election of whether Republicans and Democrats intend to cooperate.

Government funding for nearly all federal agencies expires on Saturday 11 December.

Congressional negotiators have made progress on how to divvy up around $1.4tn to be spent by 30 September 2021, the end of the current fiscal year, according to a House of Representatives Democratic aide.

But more granular details are still unresolved and votes by the full House and Senate on a huge funding bill may come close to bumping up against that 11 December deadline.

Still unclear is whether Donald Trump, who was defeated in the 3 November election, will cooperate with the effort.

If the post-election lame duck session of Congress fails to produce a budget deal, the new Congress convening in January would have to clean up the mess just weeks before the inauguration of Joe Biden.

Trump has already warned that he would veto a wide-ranging defense authorization bill Congress aims to pass if a provision is included stripping Confederate leaders names from military bases.

Most Americans Call Shutdown ’embarrassing’ As It’s Set To Become Longest In History

GOP: Time to Shut Down the Government!

Shutdowns had been a rare thing in U.S. history. The first one came just over 40 years ago, 200 years after the country’s founding. But since that time, the fisticuffs of divided government and spending disputes have become fairly commonplace if not usually this lengthy.

First shutdown was in 1976

The first partial shutdown came under President Gerald Ford in 1976 when he vetoed a spending bill amid a dispute over the budget for the Department of Health, Education & Welfare .

A whole slew of them followed over the next two decades. There were five during Jimmy Carter’s four years in office, and eight between 1981 and 1989 during Ronald Reagan’s administration.

National Parks And Capital Museums

As with the January 2018 shutdown, national parks were expected to be open to the extent practical, though there would be no staff and buildings would be closed. The shutdown affected national parks unevenly, some were accessible with bare-bones staffing levels, some operated with money from states or charitable groups, and others were locked off. Diane Regas, president and chief executive of the Trust for Public Land, called upon Trump to close all national parks to protect the public: by the third week of the shutdown, three people had died in national parks. This number was reported as being within ‘usual’ levels. At Yosemite National Park, on January 4, 2019, a death from a fall went unreported for a week.

Closures or limited access

Government Shutdowns In The United States

Jump to navigationJump to search

Government shutdowns in the United States occur when there is a failure to pass funding legislation to finance the government for its next fiscal year or a temporary funding measure. Ever since a 1980 interpretation of the 1884 Antideficiency Act, a “lapse of appropriation” due to a political impasse on proposed appropriation bills requires that the US federal government curtail agency activities and services, close down non-essential operations, furlough non-essential workers, and only retain essential employees in departments covering the safety of human life or protection of property. Voluntary services may only be accepted when required for the safety of life or property. Shutdowns can also occur within and disrupt state, territorial, and local levels of government.

This article is part of a series on the

Since the enactment of the US government’s current budget and appropriations process in 1976, there have been a total of 22 funding gaps in the federal budget, ten of which have led to federal employees being furloughed. Prior to 1980, funding gaps did not lead to government shutdowns, until Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a legal opinion requiring the government to be shut down when a funding gap occurs. This opinion was not consistently adhered to through the 1980s, but since 1990 all funding gaps lasting longer than a few hours have led to a shutdown.

Willing To Take Party To Task

Stefanik quickly became a rising star in the Republican Party when, at age 30, she became the then-youngest woman ever elected to Congress.

In November, Stefanik was re-elected to a third term in her upstate New York district with 56 percent of the vote, after including a shot of Trump campaigning with her in one of her campaign ads. She was also in charge ofrecruiting candidates for House Republicans for last year’s midterms. But after the election, Stefanik took her party to task for not doing enough to help elect women and minorities.

Stefanik said she’s backed bills to fund shuttered government agencies because “I oppose government shutdowns and in Congress have consistently voted to keep the government open.”

Food Stamps Inspections And School Lunches

During the shutdown, 95% of federal staff for the USDA‘s Food and Nutrition Services were furloughed. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program , the food-stamp program, could be funded through a $3 billion contingency fund appropriated by Congress in 2018; if the shutdown had continued through March 2019, those funds would have been exhausted, leaving some 38 million Americans without food stamps and endangering food security. Concerns were raised that continuation of the shutdown could delay the issuance of some $140 billion in tax refunds from the Internal Revenue Service .

School administrations raised concern about how to feed children who purchase food at the schools for lunch, as funding concerns caused some districts to conserve food and funding. Many limited the amount or variation of foods available for the children to purchase, and alerted parents to the concerns and the limited availability of some of the items. Most schools affected were in high-poverty areas, and depended on federally funded lunch programs, such as the Community Eligibility Provision a federal grant established by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 and operated through the Department of Agriculture. Some 22 million students in nearly 100,000 schools received school meals through that operation.

United States Federal Government Shutdown

This article is part of a series on the

The United States federal governmentshutdown from midnight on December 22, 2018, until January 25, 2019 was the longest U.S. government shutdown in history and the second and final federal government shutdown involving furloughs during the presidency of Donald Trump. It occurred when the 116th United States Congress and President Donald Trump could not agree on an appropriations bill to fund the operations of the federal government for the 2019 fiscal year, or a temporary continuing resolution that would extend the deadline for passing a bill. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal departments or agencies from conducting non-essential operations without appropriations legislation in place. As a result, nine executive departments with around 800,000 employees had to shut down partially or in full, affecting about one-fourth of government activities and causing employees to be furloughed or required to work without being paid. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the shutdown cost the American economy at least $11 billion , excluding indirect costs that were difficult to quantify.

On February 15, 2019, Trump declared a national emergency in order to fund the wall and bypass the United States Congress, after being unsatisfied with a bipartisan border bill that had passed the House of Representatives and the Senate a day before.

A Brief History Of The 2013 Government Shutdown

The 2019 governmentshutdown — the longest shutdownin US history — has rendered hundreds of thousands of federal workers without paychecks and affected dozens of federal agencies. Here’s a. When the government shut down from October 1, 2013 and the American people deserve better than a government that lurches from crisis to crisis caused by a handful of people. American. Acadia Park In Maine Shut Down – ‘We’ve been training for two years at CrossFit for this hike no kidding, Hart said. She added that the shutdown should be as inconvenient for the Washington politicians who caused it as it is for average citizens.’ The GOP have agreed to fund the parks. Obama said he will veto. 16 VA regional offices shut down Oct 08, 2013 Oct 08, 2013 The Department of Veterans Affairs has announced it is placing more than 7,000 employees on furlough, effective Oct. 8 – a move that will eliminate public access to all 56 of its Veterans Benefits Administration regional offices

Why Did The Government Shutdown In 2013

Federal workers demonstrate against the government shutdown in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on October 4, 2013. The government shut down for the first time in 17 years on October.

10/02/2013 07:31 PM EDT. Updated 10/03/2013 02:45 PM EDT. 2013-10-03T02:45-0400. Share on Facebook Share on Twitter. But as the government shutdown heads into day three,.

I mean, this whole notion that we’re going to shut down the government to get rid of Obamacare in 2013this plan never had a chance. The Abortion Shutdown Duration: 12 days, beginning Sept.

The United States federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 1995-96 were the result of conflicts between Democratic President Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress over funding for education, the environment, and public health in the 1996 federal budget.The shutdowns lasted from November 14 through November 19, 1995, and from December 16, 1995, to January 6, 1996, for 5 and 21 days.

If Congress doesn’t reach an agreement over government funding, shutdown is October 1 2011 had three major debates that nearly shut down the government But the 2011 fiscal battles only tell half.

Government shutdown begins: Congress fails to agree on spending bill. By Rebecca Kaplan, Stephanie Condon October 1, 2013 / 12:25 PM / CBS New

imum wage, or universal health carethe country would be.

A Fourth Trump Wall Shutdown Loomed

Update: Republicans Shut Down Government, Accomplish Nothing

On March 11, 2019, President Trump sent Congress a $4.7 trillion spending proposal for the governments 2020 budget that included another $8.6 billion for U.S.-Mexico border wall construction. Bringing the threat of a fourth government shutdown of the Trump presidency, Democratic lawmakers immediately vowed to block further border wall funding.

In a joint statement, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer reminded the president of the widespread chaos that had hurt millions of Americans during the 34-day border wall shutdown from December 22, 2018, to January 24, 2019. The same thing will repeat itself if he tries this again. We hope he learned his lesson, wrote Pelosi and Schumer. By law, Congress had until October 1, 2019, to approve the 2020 budget. 

Democrats Think Thats Totally Overreaching In This Case So Its A Non

Abortion coverage restrictions already exist in Medicaid and in federal programs under the auspices of the Hyde Amendment. Now anti-abortion legislators and organizations are trying to prevent abortion reimbursement under Obamacare for low-income folks. https://t.co/dUbXH4oliU

NNAF Abortion Funds December 20, 2017

The issue is a non-starter for Republicans, too. It needs to have Hyde, said Rep. Chris Smith, who is also a co-chairman of the bipartisan Pro-Life Caucus. In the Senate, since they made a promise to Collins, the bill could pass. But the House is a whole other ballgame. Rep. Mark Walker, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, which is the largest group of conservative activists in the House, told Reuters that Collins agreement means squat over

Lovely, right? Its even trickier, according to Ohio Rep. Tim Cole, since Republicans dont want to be doing anything at all to make it look like theyre keeping the ACA on life support. The abortion thing just makes it worse for them. Cole thinks it comes down to Speaker Paul Ryan. I think listens to his members, and I think he got a lot of pushback on that today, Cole told The Hill. Theres no stronger pro-life person than Paul Ryan. Thats never coming through here without Hyde language in it.

Thank you for standing firm on the Hyde Amendment! Republicans must add Hyde to any new market stabilization subsidies. #HydeSavesLives#prolifehttps://t.co/Fex7ymzJwo

FRC December 19, 2017

Republicans Start Bracing For Shutdown Fight In Run

Senate Republicans are growing concerned that rising tensions between President TrumpNancy PelosiOn The Money Eviction ruling puts new pressure on Congress Overnight Energy & Environment Presented by the American Petroleum Institute Feds target illegal gas practicesPelosi backs bill to expedite rental aid after eviction rulingMORE could lead to a shutdown fight just weeks before the election and threaten their slim majority in the chamber. 

There is widespread anxiety among GOP senators that Trumps penchant for picking fights is a political liability as his response to nationwide protests against police brutality appears to be the cause of his declining approval ratings.

Republicans are now worried that hes likely to pick a fight with Pelosi in September over government funding for the next fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1.

Trump and Pelosis relationship has only gotten worse since the 35-day government shutdown at the end of 2018 and beginning of 2019. The president regularly refers to her as “Crazy Nancy,” and last month Pelosi called him “morbidly obese.”

GOP lawmakers say the last thing they need a few weeks before the Nov. 3 election is a spending standoff and possible government shutdown, especially with 23 Republican Senate seats up for reelection and only 12 Democratic seats at stake.

Some moderate Democrats, however, have expressed support in the past for legislation to prevent future shutdowns.

Shutdown 11: September 30 To October 3 1984

President: Ronald Reagan

Senate: Republicans , Majority Leader Howard Baker

House: Democrats , Speaker Tip ONeill

Why: Reagan wanted a crime bill; House Democrats wanted water projects and a law reversing a recent Supreme Court decision allowing exemptions from Title IX of the Civil Rights Act for colleges that didnt get federal funding directly but whose students did. Reagan didnt like the latter two provisions, and a three-day spending extension was passed to give more time to negotiate after the funding gap.

Republicans’ 2010 Congressional Victory

The tensions that would ultimately produce the 2013 shutdown began to take shape after Republicans, strengthened by the emergence of the Tea Party, won back a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives from the Democrats in 2010. Even at that time, some conservative activists and Tea Party-affiliated politicians were already calling on congressional Republicans to be willing to shut down the government in order to force congressional Democrats and the President to agree to deep cuts in spending and to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which had been signed into law only a few months earlier. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, a Republican who had presided over Congress during the last government shutdowns 15 years earlier, said in April 2010 that if Republicans won back control of Congress in the 2010 election, they should remove any funding for the Affordable Care Act in any appropriations bills they passed. Gingrich said Republicans needed to “be ready to stand on principle” and should refuse to fund the new healthcare law even if their refusal would result in a shutdown of the government.

Agreement Temporarily Reopens Government

In at least a temporary solution, President Trump, on January 25, announced that he had struck a deal with Democratic leaders in Congress to allow the government to reopen until February 15 without including funding for the construction of any additional border barrier. Negotiations of border wall funding were to continue during the three-week period.

The President stressed that a border wall remained a necessity for national security and that if Congress did not agree to fund it by the February 15 deadline, he either reinstate the government shutdown or declare a national emergency allowing existing funds to be used for the purpose.

[urbanwronski]

Barnaby bunny blinks in the spotlight centre stage in our national political show, this week, as our Deputy PM shrewdly plays the victim in his marriage break-up while he muffs his special pleading self-defence for begging his Tamworth mogul pal, Greg Maguire, to be allowed to crash for six months at his millionaire mate’s luxury pad at mates’ rates.

So wrong; so unfair, Joyce pleads, leading his supporters in hand-wringing over how his private life is his own business, hoping the rest of us will miss bigger issues such as alleged abuses of public funds for travel and accommodation.  He’s also punting on our confusing workplace exploitation and his abuse of power with an innocent, mutual, private affair.

It’s a captivating performance which helps divert the nation from the Turnbull government’s response to the Closing the Gap steering committee’s finding that the programme, launched after Kevin Rudd’s apology was effectively killed when Abbott ripped over half a billion in funding out of it in 2004- and cancelled an Aboriginal housing programme.

The policy, they report, has been “effectively abandoned” by extensive budget cuts since 2014.  Turnbull’s response echoes his initial response to Don Dale; he fobs off the nation with another select joint committee inquiry which will seek how to “refresh the policy”; while holding a new inquiry into the issue of constitutional recognition.

As Jack Waterford, former editor of The Canberra Times writes, “The government has never narrowed the gap. At present rates, Aboriginals will remain the poorest, sickest, least employed and least educated group in the community 80 years from now – and still without a plan, as opposed to a vague hope and intention, to make it different.”

Happily for the PM, there is a distraction. Poor, rich, white, boy, Barnaby, a lad who enjoyed a privileged upbringing, a St Ignatius College Riverview private school boy, – one of Sydney’s most expensive schools – who at home could roam Rutherglen an 1821 hectare farm estate, a New England University accountancy graduate who loves to play the battler from the bush is now acting hard done by. It’s all about soliciting free accommodation; favours from a mate.

Not only is BJ the victim of a marriage break-up, he hasn’t broken any rules, he wails. He didn’t ask to be put up free, he claims, contradicting the story his millionaire mate Greg has given The Daily Telegraph and put about the town.

Ex-wife Natalie dents BJ’s victimhood a tad revealing to Miranda Devine that her former husband is a serial philanderer. Whilst he may be “a hard pooch to keep on the porch“, to quote Hillary Clinton, he “always comes back”. Worse, he told the nation of his separation four days before he could face his wife. And he has to tell her Vikki is expecting a boy.

Not all of Joyce’s mail is from fans either. “Somebody sent this letter to my office today,” he guffaws to Fairfax’s David Robson last year. “It ran like this: ‘I don’t know who’s a bigger c…, you or Trump. But I think you win.’ And that was it!”

Nat’s no longer a fan either. Neither are many Nationals, including Veteran Affairs Minister, Michael McCormack  who may have a crack at the leadership himself at Monday week’s party room meeting. Iain Macdonald, The Nationals’ attack dog, in senate committees an easy rival for Joyce’s fan mail award, tells Barnaby to take a back-bench seat.

Liberals call for Joyce to resign, while Labor’s leader, Bill Shorten, says neither Joyce nor Turnbull are fit to hold power.

“One way or another, Barnaby’s cactus. It’s just a matter of when.” says a senior National who tells The Saturday Paper‘s Karen Middleton that traditional National Party supporters are likely to be “extremely unhappy” – especially women.

A third of those who backed Joyce in December’s by-election no longer support him, according to a ReachTel poll last Tuesday night; fifty per cent believe that he should resign either from parliament or go to the back bench. A petition to demand his removal from his New England seat has received almost 7000 votes in five days, says The Herald Sun.

Happily, despite polls which suggest his electoral popularity is now down from 65% of the primary vote to 43%, a quarter say they’d be more likely to support him after his affair. Clearly, Barnaby still has a few mates left around the place.

Mates? ‘Mates don’t pay for things when they’re helping other mates out,’ Barney gargles in Question time. And they return favours. In a moving mateship tribute, the nation learns that Greg also does very well out of putting up public servants as Pork-barrel Barnaby moves a whole government department to New England  to boost his local vote.

In true Nationals’ fashion, a mob of rugged if not roughshod individuals, whose contempt for bureaucracy matches its war with science and the environment, Barnaby decided to relocate the Australian Pests and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) from Canberra to Tamworth. It’s a cheap pork-barrel at a mere $26 million when you compare it with $10 billion for Joyce’s Inland Rail boondoggle which will never turn a profit either but which is also a nifty source of pork.

Joyce’s plan lacks cost-benefit analysis and is entirely off his own bat. Most of his work is like that. The Inland Rail, is really not that much of an exception.  It’s all going brilliantly, of course, apart from those who work in the APVMA, including scientists who can’t or won’t leave Canberra. One in five positions are still unfilled.

Twenty regulatory scientists plus 28 staff members, with a total of 204 years’ service, left the agency between July and February, Fairfax reports in a staff exodus which has halved the authority’s approval rate for new products meeting. “Required timeframes” plummeted from 83 per cent in the September quarter to 42 per cent in March 2017.

It’s the worst rate in history says Monsanto pesticide industry leader, CropLife’s CEO, Matthew Cossey who warns of billions of dollars of lost farming revenue. He urges a return to Canberra. But he’s just a key corporate stake-holder.

At least APVMA boffins can count on food and shelter. Enter Barney’s flash mate Greg with his modestly named Quality Hotel Powerhouse, a pub which gratefully receives $14,700 spent by the APVMA relocation fund, money it controls to accommodate the wayfaring strangers whose business will help turn Tamworth’s (and Greg’s) fortunes around.

The APVMA invites an advisory committee of 20 odd to stay, reports ABC Saturday AM. Of course, as public servants, all are parched and on the tooth and primed for wining and dining. My, how they enjoy a welcome dinner of prawns with kimchi, truffle oil risotto, New England lamb and sticky date sponge; great value at $80 per head. Our shout.

The APVMA won’t divulge the total bill. Could it be an on water into wine matter? Greg’s joint is only one of several Armidale accommodation providers used by the regulator, a APVMA spokesman sniffs. “We don’t have a preferred provider”. The Neoliberal “provider” tag went feral long ago; instead of community support we buy and sell each other.

In a reverse planning move akin to putting the wings on an aircraft as it taxies down the runway, the committee, made up of APVMA and department of agriculture staff, as well as peak industry bodies, meet to work on the relocation plan.

The mad monk, Tony Abbott once buttered up Barnaby as “a great retail politician”, an MP who ranted about $100 lamb roasts resulting from a price on carbon. The term means a politician whose strength lies in cultivating his own popularity with his electorate. Coming from fellow egomaniac and walking three-word slogan, it means nothing but, alas, it’s stuck.

Every talked-up populist-capitalist running dog has his day, however, and Turnbull almost steals Barnaby’s thunder in a show-stopping finger-wagging in a new role as parliament’s head prefect or moral policeman on Thursday. The PM holds a special presser to scold Barnaby for leading a fluffy young bunny astray and to ask him to consider his position.

During intermission, Turnbull censors the ABC again – but no biggie. Happens all the time. The Guardian Australia reports “ABC News management has been in crisis meetings for two days” after the PM courageously attacks the articles in question time before getting Fifield and Morrison to join him in penning formal letters of complaint to management.

The Ayatollah, as he was mocked at Goldman Sachs, the PM succeeds in suppressing Chief Economics Correspondent Emma Alberici’s heretical analysis of how tax cuts to business don’t stimulate jobs or growth.  One in five don’t pay tax for the past three years at least. Those who do, moreover, pay a seventeen per cent tax rate, on average.

Naturally, Qantas CEO, the silver-tongued leprechaun, Alan Joyce, is quick to grab ABC Radio’s ruling class megaphone to defend his company’s non-payment of corporate tax for nine years. He argues it is legitimate under rules that allowed it to carry forward losses from previous years. His words immensely cheer our aged pensioners on $671 a fortnight.

Workers on the minimum wage of $18.29 per hour are also heartened to learn that they’ve helped QANTAS to clock up its tenth tax-free year while Joyce’s salary nearly doubled in one year to reach $24.6 million in 2017. Can we afford the $65 billion, Alberici asks cheekily. Or could it be better spent on health, education and pensions?

She dare not mention raising the minimum wage or putting some of the money back into Aboriginal housing.

Above all, Alberici joins other economics writers in putting the lie to Treasurer’s Scott Morrison’s hoax that lowering tax rates makes us more internationally competitive when it comes to attracting investment. Now he and Matthias Cormann are promoting the falsehood that company taxes have to be cut or workers won’t get wage rises.

Before Trump cut US corporate tax earlier this year, the rate was 5 to 9 percentage points higher than our own. Yet Australian companies still preferred to invest in the US rather than Ireland, where the corporate tax rate is less than half ours (12.5 per cent), or Singapore (17 per cent). The truth is that many factors beyond tax rates guide investment.

Alberici’s piece is pulled because ABC management says it doesn’t meet editorial standards. Whilst ABC finds no inaccuracies in the articles, in the opinion of Director of News, Gaven Morris, “it sounds too much like opinion”.

Did Morris miss Chris Uhlmann’s opinionated reporting of SA’s power blackouts, wrongly blaming the Labor government’s reliance on renewables? The same lie is reprised this week in ABC previews of its SA election coverage.

All of Uhlmann’s factually incorrect SA blackout articles remain up, moreover, but, amazingly, it takes the ABC only 48 hours to remove accurate and factually correct reporting because it is unpalatable to the government of the day.

Alberici’s views are in line with leading economists including at The Australia Institute and at Treasury. Greg Jericho in The Guardian protests that she’s said nothing that many other writers haven’t been saying regularly. But as Mal’s new pal Donald Trump would say, a leader doesn’t need fake news or expert opinion to spoil his policy-making.

A calculated strategy of funding cuts, a constant stream of derogatory remarks from Liberal attack dogs, has crippled the ABC’s independence. Lest we forget, these attacks include Home Affairs Protector, Peter Dutton, and his “one down many to go” gibe at ABC presenter Yassmin Abdel-Magied’s dismissal.

Gibes and taunts add to the pressure of direct protests whenever The ABC holds government too much to account. Now Turnbull’s virtual appointment to Managing Director of pal Michelle Guthrie, who says her former 14 years career with Rupert Murdoch does not maker her a hatchet woman, the national broadcaster has become a Liberal trumpet.

Soon we will have a tabloid ABC with commercials, devoted to car crashes, stabbings, how hot or how cold the weather is for the year and endless relaying of superficial USA political news and shootings, which can then be knocked down to the highest bidder as requested by the Liberal Party’s key think tank and policy unit, The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA).

Turnbull, like his predecessor, aims his performances to the tabloid media. We saw Turnbull play huckster and shyster early. Now he adds his strait-laced Presbyterian minister routine knowing it will get full coverage in The Daily Telegraph. The moralising, holier-than-thou Reverend Mal (Turnbull 2.0) emerges this week in the midst of the Barnaby barn dance.

Thursday, Mal swoops right after Barnaby’s Aint nobody’s business to ban all Canberra office Rock ‘n Roll, along with jiving and swiving. Canute-like, he vetoes all sideways samba, jazz or jelly roll; sex between all ministers and staffers.

“Turnbull bans sex”, MSM wags say. No more fornicating, fraternising or horizontal folk-dancing between ministers of the crown and their underlings. Loins are to be girded at all times. To show he’s serious about ending the funny business, he’s put his bonking prohibition into the Ministerial Code of Conduct, every Cabinet Minister’s bible.

It’s risible but then it’s meant as a show of authority. Nobody in Canberra believes that the Code of Conduct carries any weight. Shorten says it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. Perhaps it will work if staffers keep it between their knees.

Fawning is still in, of course, as is flattery and obsequious devotion; essential to any staffer’s tenure. These are transferrable skills. Moguls, miners, anything in uniform, bankers, think tankers and lobbyists are still to be lusted after.

Equally, business big and small -like the US Alliance- is there to be serviced. But ministers and minions must, at once, stop bonking each other, especially “that stubborn bastard with rhinoceros hide”, as a senior Liberal calls Barnaby.

“If you want to be in power, you can’t afford to fuck around,” is how a real PM once put it. Sadly, Mal is no PJ Keating.

Compounding his ludicrous finger-wagging, the PM makes himself look even more inept, ineffectual, absurd, by calling out Joyce publicly for his predatory behaviour as well as his poor decision-making in his affair with Vikki Campion, his staffer.  Worse, the lubricious leader of The Nationals, “the family values party” has got Ms Campion in the family way.

By Thursday, after trying a Kamasutra of new positions on the Joyce affair, Turnbull turns chaos into catastrophe when he blasts Barnaby with both barrels in a public bollocking of his own deputy, unique in Australian politics.

After the” private matter” position; the even trickier “not his partner” defence. Not his partner?

Women across the nation, including Campion, who is carrying Joyce’s fifth child, are cheered to hear her status reduced to a casual shag, a quick roll in the hay; as meaningless and ephemeral as a politician’s promise. Even Playboy bunnies had contracts. But what “those women” of Australia will hear from the PM on Thursday is even more alarming.

“My wife ironed my shirts this week… does that make her staff?” responds deep Andrew Broad, Nationals MP for Mallee.

Vikki and Barney are split up because of their madly passionate affair and she is promoted out of his office, twice, but they were not partners because they were not living together. Turnbull expects us to accept that?

Ducking and weaving, a desperate PM channels his inner Bill Clinton, (aka Slick Willie), to redefine a dangerous liaison to save his own bacon. Barnaby, he argues, did not have a partnership with that woman, his former staffer, Vikki Campion.

The PM needs to dodge responsibility for breaking the Ministerial Code of Conduct in promoting Campion, Joyce’s paramour to a couple of plum jobs to get her out of Joyce’s office to hide a rapidly all-consuming scandal.

Someone clearly thought a tricky definition was a winner. At least the Joyce debacle has helped expose the process by which Ministerial assistants are appointed and promoted out of fealty, fear and favour rather than any qualification for the job. Advisers are thus both partisan and beholden to their bosses. You see it in the quality of their advice.

Monday’s circus establishes a catchy reality TV show format: “So you think you’re a partner?” Will Team Malcolm’s cunning plan to unhook Vikki and Barney get the PM and his government off the hook? By Thursday, Newspoll will need something stronger. Cue strong leader, moral guardian of the national flock: Turnbull lowers the boom.

“Barnaby made a shocking error of judgement in having an affair with a young woman working in his office,” the PM scolds. “In doing so he has set off a world of woe for those women, and appalled all of us. Our hearts go out to them,” 

So sayeth The Reverend Mal, at a special Barnaby-barrelling press conference, Coalition shot-gun divorce combo.

The PM’s excoriating sermon; his moralising, judgemental excommunication is too little, too late and too low.  He stops short of dismissing him as deputy which ABC News 24 reminds us is something he cannot do. Secret agreement stuff.

At least Joyce’s had his bat and ball taken off him before he’s sent home. Barnaby won’t be acting PM when Turnbull treats coal-mining, non-tax-paying – at least for the last ten years – CEO of multinational Glencore to a five-day junket to the US. Joyce will take a week’s leave “to consider his position”.

Considering her position also will be Julie Bishop who is abroad at the moment but who has sent messages letting it be known that she could fly home at once if need be. Perhaps she could console Barnaby; coach Cormann by emoji?

Hearts do go out but not all, like the PM’s, appear to be worn on sleeves. Consternation erupts. Mark Kenny and other Turnbull toadies rush to praise the new, resolute and decisive PM but even Kenny concedes Mal’s ban is empty.

Barnaby Joyce calls an extraordinary conference to call out his boss for his “inept and unnecessary” attack on Friday.

Unnecessary? Paul Bongiorno notes, wryly, the PM gifts Joyce with a unique opportunity to show who is truly in charge.

Turnbull’s public rebuke and call for Barnaby to resign helps highlight the Nationals’ power. The Turnbull government’s subservience, if not its impotence, lie in its 2015 secret Coalition Agreement, whereby Turnbull secured the Prime Ministership by capitulating his own political ideals in favour of Joyce’s right-wing Abbott political agenda.

Others sniff hypocrisy. Others deplore the public blaming and shaming. Imagine if Goldman Sachs were to call out Turnbull for the $500 million it is reported to have cost the banking firm to settle out of court in 2009 after HIH collapsed taking many small investors with it after buying an overvalued FAI due in no small part to Turnbull’s dud advice.

Some may even ask is Turnbull still has no knowledge of logging when he was chairman of a company in the early 1990s whose Solomon Islands’ subsidiary was described as having some of the worst logging practices in the world.

Turnbull flits to Tasmania; seeks the high moral ground by going to water. He appears later on ABC energetically talking up the twelve great projects of the Tamar Estuary Water Management Task Force. Pity BJ is no longer water minister.

A nation is caught on the hop. For three years, our carefree, sun-drenched continental island home has thrilled to the rhythms of Flash Mal ‘n Barnaby bull-dust’s bush-bash band. They do all the old Tony Abbott standards as laid down in their secret coalition agreement but, suddenly, something’s up. Mal thinks he can pick a fight with Bulldust and win?

Is the band breaking up just over Barney’s latest dancing partner, Vikki? Slugging wildly at each other out the back of the outback country hall that is our national parliament, Mal and Barney our two Coalition band-leaders trade haymakers.  Neither is in what you could call tip-top condition. Neither could fight his way out of wet paper bag.

The stoush lasts three days. Then a press release of a kiss and make-up saturates media mid-Saturday. Ominously, Scott Morrison, who couldn’t tell the truth about Reza Berati’s 2014 murder on Manus Island is sent on to ABC Insiders, Sunday to proclaim a “frank” clearing of the air but the PM has not walked away from his earlier comments. Nor has Barnaby Joyce who is quoted later in media reports saying he has nothing to apologise for.

Why the big bust up? The boys got the band back together in Tamworth only last December. New hats and boots, too. Will Barnaby Joyce survive a Nationals’ leadership spill. The signs are ominous. Yet, even worse are the portents for a Turnbull government which has been unable to deal with a matter it knew was coming at least six months ago.

The spectacle of the public spat; the utterly inept handling of Joyce’s affair with a staffer and of Turnbull’s moral denunciation and his patently impractical ban on sex between minister and staffer can only serve to highlight how rapidly his government is unravelling.

The PM is taking twenty Aussie tycoons to the US for five days. They can talk rich man’s stuff; Cayman Islands; investment portfolios; things he’s really into. Not politics; certainly not people. Perhaps they will also form a cheer squad while he begs Rupert Murdoch to give him one more chance. One thing is certain. The Barnaby brouhaha will not have died down on his return and the damage it has caused will be permanent.

One way or another Barnaby’s cactus. The Turnbull government may be, too. Barnaby bunny blinks in the spotlight centre stage in our national political show, this week, as our Deputy PM shrewdly plays the victim in his marriage break-up while he muffs his special pleading self-defence for begging his Tamworth mogul pal, Greg Maguire, to be allowed to crash for six months at his millionaire mate's luxury pad at mates' rates.