Sunday, April 5, 2020

Hutchinson: Hotels and Motels to Refuse Out-of-State Recreational Travelers

 WATCH: Ark. Governor Hutchinson, ADH Secretary Smith coronavirus ...
Article by Tyler Hale in "AMP--Arkansas Money and Politics":

Hotels, motels and short-term rentals in Arkansas have been directed to refuse occupancy to recreational out-of-state travelers during the coronavirus pandemic.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson has issued an executive order prohibiting commercial lodgers and short-term vacation rentals from providing occupancy to out-of-state visitors seeking shelter for recreational purposes. The order is designed to restrict travel from out-of-state travelers in order to limit the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

“It is directing our travel industry – motels and hotels – not to issue occupancy out-of-state recreational travelers,” Hutchinson said. “That has been a challenge for us as we have seen people leave New Orleans or they go from another hot spots, and they see the opportunity to come to Arkansas to be here, whether they go to a park or other recreational purposes. That’s what we don’t want to have happen. This is a measure to restrict that, and we believe that it will have some significant effect out there in reducing the travel that we’ve already discouraged.”

Under Executive Order 20-13, motels and hotels can still provide lodging to healthcare professionals, first responders, law enforcement, state and federal employees on official business, National Guard members on active duty, airline crew members, journalists, employees of hotels/motels who need lodging.

In addition, the travel industry can provide lodging to hospital patients and their families, Arkansas citizens in “extant circumstances,” individuals unable to return to their homes due to the coronavirus crisis, people away from home due to work requirements, and individuals in need of shelter due to domestic violence or homelessness.

Early in the Saturday afternoon press conference, Hutchinson acknowledged the negative impact that the coronavirus pandemic was having on the state’s travel industry. He said that he received a text message with a photo of empty streets in Eureka Springs, which he said highlighted both that Arkansans are listening to state recommendations to remain home, but also that tourism in taking a hit. “Obviously, the sad part of that is that it emphasizes the stress on the economy, on our businesses, especially in the tourism industry,” he said.

State officials have been taking measures to restrict out-of-state visitors in Arkansas in recent days. On Tuesday, March 31, Hutchinson made his first announcement that he intended to restrict out-of-state travel, suggesting that popular state parks and attractions could be closed.

Arkansas Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism Secretary Stacy Hurst announced on Wednesday, April 1 that all state parks would be limited to day-use only and that all overnight activities would be prohibited after Friday, April 3.

https://armoneyandpolitics.com/hutchinson-hotels-and-motels-to-refuse-out-of-state-recreational-travelers/

UK. Coronavirus: PM admitted to hospital over virus symptoms

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been admitted to hospital for tests, 10 days after testing positive for coronavirus, Downing Street has said.
He was taken to hospital on Sunday evening with "persistent symptoms" - including a high temperature.
It is said to be a "precautionary step" taken on the advice of his doctor.
The prime minister remains in charge of the government, but the foreign secretary is expected to chair a coronavirus meeting on Monday morning.
Mr Johnson is expected to stay overnight and is having what have been described as "routine tests", according to BBC Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg.
In a statement, a Downing Street spokeswoman said: "On the advice of his doctor, the prime minister has tonight been admitted to hospital for tests.
"This is a precautionary step, as the prime minister continues to have persistent symptoms of coronavirus ten days after testing positive for the virus."
She added: "The prime minister thanks NHS staff for all of their incredible hard work and urges the public to continue to follow the government's advice to stay at home, protect the NHS and save lives."

Mr Johnson has worked from home since it was announced that he had tested positive for coronavirus on 27 March.
He was last seen in public applauding the NHS and other key workers from his flat in Downing Street on Thursday evening, and chaired a coronavirus meeting via video-link on Friday morning.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52177125

An Address by Her Majesty The Queen - BBC

Better days will return', promises Queen

The Queen promises the nation that better days are ahead - and, echoing the words of the Vera Lynn wartime song, that “we will meet again”.
She says: “We should take comfort that while we may have more still to endure, better days will return: we will be with our friends again; we will be with our families again; we will meet again.”

What did the Queen say in her address?

  • The Queen's address stressed the value of self-discipline and resolve - saying she hopes that, in the future, everyone will “be able to take pride in how they responded to this challenge”
  • She said the address reminded her of her very first broadcast, made during World War Two with her sister, Princess Margaret
  • She thanked everyone “on the NHS front line” and other key workers
  • The Queen said that those following social distancing measures and staying at home were “sparing many families the pain already felt by those who have lost loved ones”
  • The weekly applauses for NHS workers, delivery of food parcels to the vulnerable and people checking on neighbours are all examples of how the UK has “come together”, she said
  • She stressed that “we will succeed” in tackling coronavirus, and - with a reference to Vera Lynn’s wartime song - assured the nation that “we will meet again”

Why the Media’s Coronavirus Campaign Is Failing

The president’s enemies may think he’s a joke, but it’s not too late for Trump to surprise everyone.


The corporate media misunderstands the role of a president during a crisis. Above all, people look to their president for hope. Right now, whatever Donald Trump is doing seems to be working. To the consternation of his foes in the press, Trump’s approval ratings are up, while theirs are down.

That must be awfully frustrating. After all, Trump is a buffoon who doesn’t respect the scientific experts. Trump, as everyone knows, blundered in the early stages, letting a critical month go by while Democrats were laser-focused on impeach . . . er, the coming pandemic.

Reasonable people won’t pin all of the blame on the president. America is, after all, a federation of states, with a massive and sprawling bureaucracy. And the most inveterate Trump critics must admit that nobody saw this pandemic coming. People don’t care about what steps could or could not have been taken a month ago. They care about what’s happening right now.

In times of emergency, people look to their leaders for stability. Even liberals, while claiming to oppose authoritarians, have found themselves bewitched by the ersatz authoritarianism of New York’s sleazy governor, Andrew Cuomo.

If at first President Trump may have appeared careless, he is now taking the crisis seriously. Things are dark and they will get darker, but if Trump can play the part of “wartime president” convincingly, many will be ready to vote for him.

The coronavirus is a psychological event, something that works to the advantage of someone, like Trump, who has a big personality and who understands human psychology better than most people. The media are convinced that Trump is a misanthropic monster, but the truth is that the president has a rough humanity. Trump, though you’d never know it from the news coverage, obviously likes people. He has a social genius that will help him weather this crisis, whatever may come.

The coronavirus will test his competence as a president, sure. But Trump’s detractors vastly overestimate the significance of policy expertise and underplay the importance of social skills.

A confused class of technocrats assumes that average people judge presidents as they do—on whether they make perfect, expert-approved decisions. But most people are more attuned to intangibles, such as likability, confidence, and an ability to lift the public’s spirits—in short, they judge the president as a moral figure, whether he’s someone who inspires them, not on whether he’s a genius in a lab coat.

Trump is approaching the crisis with wartime bravado and surprising balance. His concern for the economy, doubtless tied up with his reelection, is completely sensible and humane. But he is extending the lockdowns by another month (at least) anyway, guaranteeing weeks of further financial and psychological suffering for the American people in order to limit the death toll. No one can say that he isn’t taking this seriously.

Trump has shown restraint, too, or at least a lack of concern about making the most of the moment politically. The coronavirus is proving Trump right about an awful lot. This could have been a big “I-told-you-so” moment. He’s now demonstrably right about China, about globalism, about the decadence and corruption of “the swamp” and in the permanent bureaucracy and in Congress —which could not even muster itself to throw more than a few breadcrumbs from the high table, even as millions of Americans lost their jobs.

For years now, the president’s detractors (and some fans) have likened Trump to an American Caesar, a would-be tribune of Middle America who had ridden to power on the resentment of an angry underclass of “deplorables.” If Trump is really a “strongman” as they say, then surely this is the moment for the American Caesar to step out of the shadows.

With Roman resonance, a corrupted aristocracy is failing its people from the halls of the Senate while celebrities offer insipid reassurances from inside their mansions. Hospitals in some places are overwhelmed, millions are in distress, and despite all of this chaos and misery, a major political party finds sympathy to spare for migrant workers and “diversity” initiatives.

The media, meanwhile, are preoccupied with nipping at the president’s heels for “racist” rhetoric and doing everything possible to depress the public. “Enemy of the people” has never sounded more accurate.

If there ever was a time to “drain the swamp,” it’s now. Trump has been given a golden opportunity to strike a contrast between himself and the failures of the bipartisan ruling class and the corruption of the times, more generally. He has an opportunity to be the people’s champion.

Outside of feuding with the media and rattling some stuffed shirts with “Chinese virus,” however, Trump strangely has responded to this crisis as an aloof federalist.

Of course, he’s right that the states have their role to play. But the heavy-handedness that some expected from this “dictator” has hardly materialized. That may come as a disappointment to the most committed ideologues in the Trump camp, who have long seen Trump as a solitary champion for the “forgotten Americans” who single-handedly would transform the GOP into a party for working people.

If that was the hope, then the $2 trillion coronavirus rescue bill fell short. Trump seemed more concerned with signing a bill than with making sure it was a good one. Trump might have used the bully pulpit to keep the Republican party—of late said to be his personal cult—in line with working-class prerogatives.

Nowhere has Trump looked more laissez-faire than in his clashing with Cuomo. Why would a nationalist hesitate to mobilize the production of critically needed medical supplies?

But Trump is no ideologue. He goes by instinct, and his instincts are often smart. His presidency may well survive the coronavirus without his ever becoming the populist revolutionary many said he was, and the sort the moment appears to be demanding. He may succeed while disappointing his bitterest enemies and his most ideological supporters alike.

The president’s enemies may think he’s a joke, but it’s not too late for Trump to surprise everyone. He may even win over some of those who, in peacetime, otherwise would hate his guts.

Who in his right mind would want him to fail?

Suddenly, Neither Liberty nor Civilization Is Assured


Article by Richard Fernandez in "PJMedia":

The two biggest uncertainties about the post-COVID-19 world are whether any privacy will survive and whether China or the United States will dominate. With regards to the first, the Guardian rhetorically asks whether you would  trade the total loss of your privacy for safety from the coronavirus, even if it meant entering a "cybergulag." That's what Russia is planning to do and China already did.  As the City Journal put it, perhaps the only way out of the lockdowns  is to voluntarily submit to 24x7 electronic tracking.

The responses adopted by governments around the world seem to fall into two main categories. Those countries able to leverage new and emerging technologies to fight the virus have done better in limiting the number of cases and fatalities, while managing to keep most of their economies and societies operational. The countries unable to use technology had to rely on lockdowns, quarantines, generalized closures, and other physical restrictions—the same methods used to fight the Spanish flu more than a century ago and, in many cases, with the same slow, painful results. In Singapore and South Korea, individuals are digitally monitored, but life is almost normal. In Spain, they are not monitored—but they cannot leave home.

Western publics seem willing to submit to previously unthinkable levels of government control in the name of public health. New York governor Andrew Cuomo is able to say with considerable support that "We do not have enough ventilators. Period. I am signing an Executive Order allowing the state to take ventilators and redistribute to hospitals in need. The National Guard will be mobilized to move ventilators to where they are urgently required to save lives."

Residents are now officially encouraged to inform on each other. "Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said this week that 'snitches' in his city will get “rewards” if they tattle on neighbors who could be violating the stay-at-home order put in place to curb the spread of the novel coronavirus," Fox News reported. "Google will help public health officials use its vast storage of data to track people’s movements amid the coronavirus pandemic, in what the company called an effort to assist in unprecedented times."

The effort is just a fraction of what Google has on tap for the global pandemic. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the Alphabet Inc. unit is among companies that have cooperated with a White House task force looking at controversial technologies such as individual location tracking to enforce distancing guidelines. Such technologies that have been effective in some countries are out of bounds in many democracies because of privacy concerns.

Privacy concerns are likely to be swept aside by the understandable fear of disease. As a fictional CIA agent explained to an idealist, people in distress will let government do anything to make the problem go away. "Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em."

Although such measures might be sold as temporary expedients, power once obtained is rarely relinquished. After all, it's a chance to remake the world:

[California governor] Newsom said, “forgive me for being long-winded, but absolutely we see this as an opportunity to reshape the way we do business and how we govern. And that shouldn’t put shivers up the spines of you know one party or the other. I think it’s an opportunity a new for both parties to come together and meet this moment and really start to think more systemically, not situationally, not just about getting out of this moment, but more sustainably and systemically to consider where we can go together in this historic moment if we meet it at a national level, in a state, and sub-national level. So, the answer is yes.”

The City Journal writes: "if you think that the measures being tested in China grant too much power to public authorities, different ideas can be found elsewhere. The uses of technology are, by definition, plural and creative. In Singapore, for example, the government has launched a new app for contact-tracing that both increases its effectiveness and keeps each individual in charge. The app works by exchanging Bluetooth signals between phones to detect other participating users in close proximity. Records of such encounters are stored on each user’s phone. If a user is interviewed by the medical authorities as part of the contact-tracing efforts, he can consent to share his data. The app does not collect or use location data and does not access a user’s phone contact list or address book. Importantly, no data are uploaded to a government server."

Privacy issues will become the centerpiece of Western domestic policy debates. The public can try and reclaim its privacy but they shouldn't get their hopes up.

Foreign affairs will be dominated by the rivalry between China and the United States as each country vies for which can most successfully recover and regroup from the disaster. Beijing is already claiming the title. "Beijing is bolstering its soft power and taking the lead in a global response to the coronavirus public health crisis. The moves come as China’s daily number of new infections decline while those in the U.S. rise."

On social and state media, China continues to promote its shipments of medical supplies to hard hit countries in Europe and Africa. China’s officials have also used Twitter — blocked in the country — to trumpet China’ssuccess in containing the outbreak domestically, even though the virus was first reported there and was met with missteps initially. Through the efforts, Beijing is touting the superiority of its governance model and tapping into patriotic sentiments at home.

The Chinese rivalry loomed, like the proverbial elephant in the living room, over the relief of the commanding officer of the USS Theodore Roosevelt by Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly over a complaint sent to the newspapers about the coronavirus without consulting the chain of command.

When the Commanding Officer of the USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT decided to write his letter of 30 March 2020 that outlined his concerns for his crew in the midst of a COVID-19 outbreak, the Department of the Navy had already mobilized significant resources for days in response to his previous requests. On the same date marked on his letter, my Chief of Staff had called the CO directly, at my request, to ensure he had all the resources necessary for the health and safety of his crew. ...
But there is a larger strategic context, one full of national security imperatives, of which all our commanders must all be aware today. While we may not be at war in a traditional sense, neither are we truly at peace. Authoritarian regimes are on the rise. Many nations are reaching, in many ways, to reduce our capacity to accomplish our national goals. This is actively happening every day ...
The nation needs to know that the Big Stick is undaunted, unstoppable —and that you will stay that way as we as a Navy help you through this COVID-19 challenge. Our adversaries need to know this as well. They respect and fear the Big Stick, and they should. We will not allow anything to diminish that respect and fear as you, and the rest of our nation, fights through this virus. As I stated, we are not at war by traditional measures, but neither are we at peace. The nation you defend is in a fight right now for our economic, personal and political security, and you are on the front lines of this fight in many ways.

The most intriguing aspect of the naval press conference is the linkage of the virus to deterrence in the new cold war. The natural world is setting the agenda in domestic and international politics. As City Journal notes "the coronavirus proved that our natural environment continues to be as dangerous and hostile to human life as it has always been. ... climate change seemed to show that human activity was the problem ... Nature is once again the problem ... almost as if humanity is once again discovering the Neolithic."

Suddenly, neither liberty nor civilization is assured. Once again it is about survival. Survival of the fittest.

Nancy Pelosi’s Wuhan Virus Priority Is To Give Money To Her Rich Donors

Behind the scenes, congressional Democrats’ main priority is bringing back a big tax loophole for rich people in high-tax blue states: their donors.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has political priorities. During negotiations over the three Wuhan coronavirus stimulus bills, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., tried to include loans for abortion providers, as well as a bailout of the Obamacare exchanges that would end up funding abortion.

That led to some bad PR for Pelosi, but the House speaker may be a glutton for punishment. If there’s one thing Democrats are beholden to more than the abortion lobby, it’s the rich people in blue states who fund their campaigns.

How’s this? Pelosi just told reporters that one of her top priorities for a fourth stimulus bill — which may or may not be passed, since Congress has already passed three bills and spent more than $2 trillion — is a removal of the current cap on the state and local tax deduction, or SALT.

The 2017 Cap on the SALT Loophole

The 2017 Trump tax cuts capped the SALT deduction at $10,000 per year of state and local taxes paid. This was to end a loophole that went to rich people living in high-tax states, who were allowed to deduct their high state taxes from their federal tax bill. This allowed politicians in these states to run on high taxes for the rich, and to raise state taxes, but also to shield their donor class from the full consequences of those policies.

The uncapped SALT deduction didn’t go mostly to rich people, it went only to rich people. This is because only rich people pay well more than $10,000 in state and local taxes, and this deduction was available only to those who didn’t take their standard deduction.

The standard deduction is the amount of money a taxpayer is allowed to earn before being taxed. In 2019, it was more than $12,000 for a single person and double that for a married couple. Taxpayers can “itemize,” and not take their standard deduction, if enough tax breaks and loopholes add up to surpass the standard deduction. If the first $50,000 for a married couple can’t be taxed, for instance, that’s better than the $24,800 standard deduction, so this couple would itemize.

Before 2017 tax reform, which capped both the mortgage interest deduction and the SALT deduction, the rich benefited greatly from being able to itemize. Especially in blue states, where rich people pay extremely high state and local taxes, those high state taxes ran up their itemized deduction amount and directly reduced their federal tax bill.

According to an estimate by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, repealing the $10,000 limit to the SALT would reduce federal revenues by about $77 billion a year. Fifty percent of the money would go to those earning more than $1 million per year, with the rest going to those who earn more than $200,000 per year. Meanwhile, only 3 percent of middle-income households in the United States would benefit at all from getting rid of the SALT deduction cap.

Trickle-Down Pelosi?

But Pelosi doesn’t just want to give her rich donors their loophole going forward. She wants to “retroactively undo [the cap on] SALT.” “We could reverse that for 2018 and 2019 so that people could refile their taxes,” and they would “have more disposable income, which is the lifeblood of our economy, a consumer economy that we are,” said Pelosi.

Predictably, her spokesman later walked back her wish for a reinstatement of the full SALT deduction, and said it could be “tailored to focus on middle-class earners and include limitations on the higher end.” The problem is that the dwindling middle class in a state like California doesn’t get this deduction.

Democrats didn’t dream this up yesterday, either. It has nothing to do with the Wuhan coronavirus. Democrats have been pushing for an end to the SALT cap ever since the GOP passed it in 2017. Here’s the New York Times: “In the 2018 midterm elections, Democrats wielded the SALT limits in House campaigns against Republicans in wealthy blue-state suburbs of cities like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Democrats voted last year to repeal the cap, but the effort died in the Republican-controlled Senate.”

When Democrats voted to repeal the SALT cap in the House last year, on mostly party lines, they were even willing to “frontload” the bill to immediately cut the taxes of the blue-state wealthy by raising taxes for everyone else — including working Americans — at a later date. Earlier, they were so desperate to get rid of the SALT cap, they even funded a lawsuit to try to overturn the law in the courts.

Pelosi’s priority isn’t working to make our economy less dependent on China, nor to help the millions of service-sector employees who have been laid off. The country is in economic turmoil, and some are estimating unemployment could shoot over 20 percent, but House Democrats are worried about their rich donor base. This behavior is shameful and instructive regarding the ocean-sized gap between the Democratic Party of today and the Democratic Party of yesteryear, flawed though it may have been.

Democrats tell us normal people they don’t like how far corporate taxes were cut. That may be fair. But behind the scenes, congressional Democrats’ main priority is bringing back a big tax loophole for rich people in high-tax blue states: their donors. You can’t make this stuff up. Democrats are no longer the party of the little guy, and haven’t been for a very long time.

We Need A White House Task Force On Reopening The Economy

A new task force focused on getting America back to work would be a welcome compliment to the coronavirus task force.


On Saturday President Trump expressed support for the idea, put forth by Fox News’ Dana Perino, of a White House task force focused on reopening the American economy. For several weeks now the White House coronavirus task force, headed up by Vice President Mike Pence has taken center stage as the nation battles the global pandemic. The work of that task force has been superb, but it is limited to the medical front, a second task force focused on the economy would be a welcome addition.

Thrust into the national spotlight Drs. Deborah Brix and Anthony Fauci have been the guiding force in the White House efforts to stem the outbreaks of Wuhan virus across the country. As medical doctors their sole focus is in reducing transmission of the virus to levels as low as possible. This is noble and important work, but they cannot take into account the legitimate competing interest of avoiding a new great depression as the economy tanks.

The need for that economic interest to be addressed in just as serious a way is dire. In the last two weeks 10 million Americans have their jobs. Some experts believe the unemployment rate could reach 30 percent, a number unheard of in living memory. Meanwhile, according to a recent poll 24 percent of small business owners who have seen their shops closed by the nearly nationwide shutdown expect they will never be able to reopen for business.

What is required and what has been sorely lacking is an effort to balance the medical and economic impact of this crisis. In far too many cases those who even attempt to address the immediate and potentially generational harmful impact this crisis could have on American workers and businesses have been portrayed as heartless ghouls who only care about the stock market, not human lives. But this is not the case.

In fact, the myriad potential for disastrous effects that a second great depression could have on our nation are an emergency in their own right which requires just as much attention as the pandemic itself. Entire communities are poised to be plunged into a nightmare of joblessness, empty storefronts, addiction and even suicide if we do not find a way to get America back working soon.

An economic task force would ,for the first time during the crisis, balance the medical concerns with the economic concerns not only at the White House itself, but also in the public eye. It would give hope to Americans eyeing a wary future in which they either have already lost work, or a business or stand on that frightening precipice. Functioning in tandem, but working separately these two task forces could provide checks and balances on each other, allowing the president, local officials, and the American people to make more sound judgments.

One cannot blame the current task force for casting a cold eye on economic concerns. That is not their job. But as Trump put it last month, “we cannot let the cure be worse than the problem.” We must simultaneously tackle the challenge of the virus and the challenge of keeping millions of American households afloat.

By standing up this new task force, Trump will send a powerful message that the government hears the pleas of the forgotten Americans who are suffering not in hospitals but in economic despair. This task force is needed, and it is needed now.

Stressful Weeks Call for...


Stressful Weeks Call for 
Courageous Moments

We were about 1,800 miles from home, and the transmission was dead. We’d had trouble with it at the last rest area, but I’d been able to limp us along to the next small town, Sidney, Nebraska, but there was no more limping, even. We were stuck, hundreds of miles from the nearest person we knew. With two kids in the back seat, ages 8 and 11, the thought entered my head, “This could turn really bad. It doesn’t have to, though. It all depends on the next word that comes out of my mouth. And right now I’d better choose faith and hope.”

I was responsible. It was up to me. I could have exploded in anger or shrunk into worry. In that moment, for the sake of my family, I had to exercise real moral courage.

Moral courage isn’t always about the big decisions. Sometimes it’s mere moments that take us by surprise. On Sunday morning my wife and I were settling down for our church’s online worship service, when suddenly I felt a hot blast of angry resentment for not being able actually to be with people.

It was a very small thing, compared to, say, doctors and nurses putting their lives on the line to care for coronavirus patients. I’m not in their situation, so I won’t presume to speak of what that’s like. I’m just thankful for the depth of courage they’re displaying.

Still for me it was an unexpected moment of moral choice: I could give in and set myself on a trajectory toward bitterness, or I could choose to shift my focus toward the positive, something to be thankful for.

Setting the Right Trajectory

Those moments are likely to multiply. The course we set ourselves in today’s momentary decisions may well determine where we end up weeks or months from now. And it isn’t getting any easier. My patience is wearing thinner by the day. I’m getting more antsy to get out and do something totally outrageous, like having a cup of coffee with a friend. The longer this lasts, the more I expect it will test my character.

Moments really matter, but so does our day-by-day, week-by-week heart preparation. Because resentment and joy happen in very different ways. Joy requires cultivation over time, by letting our minds dwell on the big picture, especially God’s eternal goodness. Resentment, in contrast, is often over small things, and it attacks us by surprise, as it did for me Sunday morning.

Small things can multiply, though. Moments matter. I took Sunday morning’s moment of bitterness as a warning. “This could turn really bad. It doesn’t have to, though. It depends on the next word that comes out of my mouth. And right now I’d better choose faith and hope.”

Small, momentary decisions can really affect larger outcomes. They’re not the whole story. There’ll be sickness, loss, economic struggles for many of us. Still, moments matter. It’s about the trajectory. 

Trusting God for the Right Outcome

Back to Sidney, Nebraska. By God’s grace, I said the right thing in that crucial moment: “Okay, family, let’s trust God with this.” We ended up spending four or five days there, waiting out a weekend and then the delivery and installation of a new transmission. An after-market warranty paid not only for the minivan’s repair, but even our food and lodging. We rented a car — the man did the paperwork with pencil and paper — which gave us wheels to go see a rodeo in town. Our hotel was just a short walk from one of the most interesting stores in the country, the original, flagship store of the Cabela’s outfitter chain.

A few years later when we were planning a family vacation, we asked the kids, “What’s been your favorite vacation so far?” Our son said, “Sidney.”

No one is going to look back on this pandemic and call it their favorite vacation. That’s not the point. The point is, for the sake of ourselves and our families, we need to be on guard for attacks of bitterness, hopelessness, or worry. Reality on the ground might seem to justify our feeling that way. The larger reality, though, is that God is still in charge, and He’s still good.

We would all do well to keep that in mind, day by day, week by week. Whatever comes out of this for each of us, it’ll be a lot better for us all if we exercise moral courage by trusting Him, thanking Him, and cultivating joy, so we can be ready when those hard moments hit — which they will.





Did Anyone Think This Through?

 The Three Stooges - Pictures - CBS News
Article by Douglas Flint in "The American Thinker":

Count me as one of a diminishing number of "coronavirus response" skeptics.  My vantage point is that of a working-class person (service manager in an auto repair shop).  My state of Virginia has joined the growing number of states that has ordered its citizens to remain in their homes except for essential reasons, and a shutdown of non-essential businesses until at least June 10th.
 
The good news for me is that auto repair is classed as an essential service and I have enough diverse skills to make me the kind of employee who will be the last to be laid off.  The bad news is that inevitably, I will be laid off.  Shop revenues for the month of March were down between 25 and 50%, depending on which metric was being used, which means my pay was down by a nearly equal percentage.  So far, in the first few days of April, revenues are down 75-90% companywide.

I work for good people.  It’s a family-owned business with 10 shops.  I know they don't have the cash reserves to keep paying staff through this, and even if they did, they would be foolish to do so since there is no date certain of a return to normalcy.
 
At some point very soon, they will have to shift from keeping enough employees to recover quickly when the crisis ends, to preserving whatever assets they have for the survival of the family.  When that happens and I am laid off, as millions of working-class Americans already have been, I have a problem beyond no job and no income.  Try no health insurance.  Because I, as most working Americans, get my health insurance through work. 

Approximately $1,500 a month comes out of my pay to cover health insurance for me, my wife, and my son.  It is the top-tier health insurance plan available, but the basic plan would only have been a few hundred dollars cheaper.  The policies of my government have not only encouraged me to get my insurance through my employer -- they have made it nearly impossible to get it any other way.  The government has also ordered the draconian actions that have shut the economy down and thus the potential loss of my insurance, at a time when we are theoretically heading into a healthcare mega disaster. 

If I were an ambitious leftist trying one more time to get socialized health care across the goal line I couldn't plan it any better:

intentionally throw tens of millions of Americans out of work and deprive them of their health insurance. 

But what about COBRA?  (That's the law that allows you to keep your employer-sponsored health insurance when you lose your job.) Duh!  You still have to pay for it.  With no income.  The $1,200 of promised money I am supposed to someday get from the government is not enough to cover 1 month of my premiums. Unemployment insurance?  Medicaid?  When people’s backs are to the wall and they have no choice and no other way, they will accept socialism.

I fear Donald Trump has taken the bait and he knows this.  He is trapped in a car barreling down the highway toward economic disaster and a great depression, and he knows it.  He is desperately looking for an off ramp but unfortunately he has turned the accelerator and the wheel over to the "experts.” 

The “experts” are people of genuine theoretical scientific knowledge but no real-world experience and no capability of risk assessment beyond the specific risks in their chosen field.  They are focused on the virus and only the virus, because it is not their job to worry about anything but the virus.  They could, without blinking an eye, recommend a six-month in-home lockdown.  You could scream, "But people will starve by the millions!”  That is not their concern.  If they starve to death in their homes, they did not die of coronavirus and thus the “experts” have done their jobs.  It doesn't help that almost all of them are government employees for life guaranteed to receive full pay and benefits until the end of the known universe.  They are not capable of grasping the concept that no work equals no pay, no insurance, no food, and finally nowhere to live. 

But there’s another bunch of people in that car.  Malevolent people within the government, federal and state, who would love nothing more than to slam the car into the wall, destroy the economy, the lives of millions of people, and destroy America’s preeminence in the world, and the Trump presidency, in order to give themselves the ultimate power, the power of life or death over each citizen.  They will fight furiously when and if the president tries to take back control of the car.

At some point very soon, Trump will have to accept the fact that the ones he has turned the car over to are not going to stop, slow down, or turn.  There is no incentive or reason for them to do so.  So far, Trump has confined himself to tossing money out the windows of the speeding car hoping somehow this will soften the blow.  It won’t and it can’t. 

Insane ideas are being hatched (in a Harvard faculty lounge?) such as loaning businesses money to pay employees when there’s no productive work to do or revenues to collect, with a fingers-crossed promise that the loans will be “forgiven” if certain criteria are met.  But we know our government bureaucrats  all too well.  Contributed to DNC?  Loan forgiven.  Contributed to RNC?  Sorry, you needed to spend 80% of that loan on payroll, but records show you only spent 79.97% on payroll.  Payback in full plus penalty interest.  Don’t have it?  Sell the business to my friend or family or give Uncle Sam a controlling stake.

No, the smart play, the only play for any businessman is to lay off your employees.  No telling how long this will go on, so why burden yourself with an insane relationship with the federal government?  Your employees will probably be better off drawing full unemployment and you’ll probably be able to pick them up at a considerable discount when and if the crisis starts to ease.
 
And the longer this goes on, the harder the recovery will be.  Inflation will be a major factor if money is continuously tossed out of the car.  States will have to raise the unemployment premiums on the few surviving businesses in order to cover their enormous outlays.  People will not want to, or be able to, go back to life as usual or spending as usual.  After all, what has happened once can happen again.  Better to hunker down, don’t buy that new car, don’t upgrade that house, don’t spend that $150 on a dinner out or a rock concert.  Become more like our depression-era grandparents.
 
The sad and scary part is that the safe political bet for Trump is to let the “experts” slam the car into the wall, destroy the country and the lives of millions, and rule as a new-era FDR, with the country in permanent depression, the capital hidden in walls, under rocks, or in treasury notes until better times.

The right thing to do, even if it costs him the presidency, is to kick the crazy “expert” driver out of the car and grab the wheel and steer for the off ramp.  It may already be too late.  But it’s the only chance to save the country. 

And yes, those he kicks out of the car or subdues will all become his open enemies now with twice the power because of the trust he gave them in the first place, and because of the media’s readiness to embrace them as they trash the president daily on all the networks.
 
No death in the United States will be recorded as anything but a coronavirus death.  Armed suspect shot in bank?  Hey, test him.  He had coronavirus!  103-year-old granny with stage 4 pancreatic cancer?  Whoa, she died of coronavirus.  Boeing 737 goes down with all hands?  Well, we can’t prove it, but the maintenance chief did test positive for the virus.
 
It will be a really tough news cycle for the next 7 months or the next 55 months if Donald Trump wins re-election.  But it was always going to be thus.

Why Accepting Two Million COVID-19 Deaths May be Better Than a National Lockdown


Article by Selwyn Duke in "The American Thinker":

We’ve heard much during the Wuhan flu crisis about a “worst case scenario” of two million dead Americans, a staggering number. But missing from the national conversation is something equally important:

What’s the worst case scenario given our present course of action, largely locking down the country and freezing life like an insect stuck in amber?

What if worse coming to worst means a great depression, a descent into tyranny, millions more dead from other causes and a permanently impoverished nation?

Almost the entire virus debate has centered around whether the experts are correct about the infectivity and virulence of the disease and in their projections (which have often been drastically wrong). But even if we assume that the experts having the government’s ear — and there are dissenters who don’t — are absolutely inerrant in their expressed judgments, there’s a problem with just “listening to the health professionals’” prescriptions:

Like most everyone else, these individuals have only a narrow range of expertise; they are epidemiologists, virologists, infectious disease specialists, etc.

They are not epidemiologists-cum-philosophers/political scientists/sociologists/economists.

So they provide counsel on how to achieve a narrow goal contemplated from a narrow perspective. This is not a put-down. It is their job to do just that.

Congruent with this, these experts consider the health-related consequences of the disease, not the civilizational-health related consequences of their cure — which may be worse than the disease.

The latter is the job of statesmen, commentators, academics, and the wider population. All these groups, unfortunately, are found wanting in this.

Unemployment claims are at a record high, but I don’t have to tell you how the current lockdowns are ravaging our economy. Many businesses and jobs will never come back, yet this concern not only is just the iceberg’s tip, it isn’t even, as critics may say, just about “money” — because money isn’t just about “money.”

Money represents resources, people’s capacity to obtain food, shelter, clothing, health care, education and everything else that preserves life and makes it worth living. Note here that poverty is associated with a host of negative health and health-related risks, such as a higher incidence of manifold diseases, depression, anxiety, stress-related disorders, suicide, domestic violence, child abuse and crime.

Yet even more must be considered. Remember now that if the following seems radical, it is a worst case scenario. And if we can consider the worst case scenario on one side of the equation, we must for balance and perspective consider the worst case scenario on the other side as well.

What if locking down the nation means causing a great depression lasting a decade or more?

What if this economic disaster leads, as history teaches it can, to the rise of demagogues and loss of freedom?

What if there are consequently millions more deaths from other causes due to economic malaise and descent toward tyranny?

What if, in other words, we essentially destroy our civilization as we know it?

Will it have been worth it to ensure there’d be fewer Wuhan virus deaths — even two million, shocking though that number is? Civilizational destruction, something permanent, would be a steep price to pay to combat a pandemic, something temporary.

Know that I’m not insensitive to the vulnerable’s plight. Near and dear to me are two people in an extreme high-risk category and a handful of others somewhat at risk, and I have an in-law physician relative who contracted the virus and is currently treating herself with hydroxychloroquine. But I also recognize the truth of economist Thomas Sowell’s observation that sometimes in life “there are no solutions; there are only tradeoffs.” Are we making the right tradeoff now?

I’ll emphasize that my worst case scenario isn’t at all fanciful. Many are concerned about a depression resulting from our lockdowns and about the erosion of freedom as people, as people will, trade liberty for security. In fact, The New York Times, of all entities, recently ran a headline warning, “For Autocrats, and Others, Coronavirus Is a Chance to Grab Even More Power.”

“Leaders around the world have passed emergency decrees and legislation expanding their reach during the pandemic,” the paper writes in its subhead before asking, “Will they ever relinquish them?”

Anyone who grasps the nature of power — and of the power-hungry — won’t bet the answer is yes.

Now ask yourself: If the given amount of power is currently being seized, what would happen in an infinitely worse situation such as lockdown-caused depression and social upheaval?

Speaking of autocrats, the mainstream media have rightly been castigated for doing despotic China’s bidding and touting its “response” to the virus; never mind that China created this problem and that its response’s immediate effectiveness is actually unknown because Beijing lies like it breathes. But what if China has responded rightly, not in its tyrannical measures but in one respect?

What if Beijing’s apparent decision to get people back to work and accept virus-related deaths leaves it stronger over the long term? There is some possibility, a scary one, that China could emerge from this as the world’s superpower — a status it craves — under our worst case scenario.

Also consider Sweden. That it continues commerce and life largely unchanged and is striving for “herd immunity” may be instructive. Are we just prolonging the inevitable?

Of course, one lockdown motivation is to slow the virus’s spread so that hospitals aren’t overwhelmed. But Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Wednesday that there won’t be a true turning point until a vaccine is developed. Yet some say this could be 18 months away, an eternity in lockdown terms.

In the meantime, since restoring normal commerce and freedom without experiencing increased virus contagion appears unlikely, focusing on developing herd immunity while insulating vulnerable groups may be the wiser course.

Remember, too, that we’ve been through this before. During the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918-19, 675,000 Americans died; adjusted for today’s U.S. population this amounts to a bit more than two million people — exactly our worst case scenario number.

We weathered that pandemic, of course. But people were far different then, and, correspondingly, we’re far different politically today. If President Trump advocated the Swedish model and there were hundreds of thousands of deaths, never mind two million, every one would be laid at his doorstep and he’d likely be ousted from office (as it is, it was already suggested last month that Trump may be guilty of “negligent homicide”). The same could befall any governor acting likewise, never mind that he might have helped save the future — because the alternate future would never be known.

This is why I know certain things. No, I don’t have definitive answers; this is a fluid, serious situation with many unknowns, and we all should act responsibly and not claim knowledge we don’t possess. But I do know some questions, as posed above, that should be asked and maturely debated. I also know this won’t likely happen, given man’s nature in general and the state of our politics and media in particular.

This is why we’d better hope for a highly efficacious Wuhan virus treatment — and fast. Because if we’re going to lockdown our nation for months on end, well, we may learn the hard way that we might as well have just thrown away the key

Kentucky Directorate of Coronavirus Compliance Orders Ankle Monitors For Uncooperative Citizens



Comrades, the state officials have judicial authority.  Attempting to defy the dictates of the state will not end well as this young citizen comrade discovered.


“DL” is forced by state authority to live with a coronavirus infected resident.  DL, has tested negative for the virus, but now becomes a potential carrier because the state is requiring DL to remain in close proximity to the infected citizen.  DL doesn’t like this and attempted to leave his confinement; he was captured by the state.  A judge ordered DL to wear an ankle monitor to ensure he remains compliant to the containment order.

Kentucky – Despite Governor Andy Beshear ordering all Kentucky residents to stay at home to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus, some in Louisville are reportedly refusing to self-quarantine.
As a response, Jefferson Circuit Court judge Angela Bisig is ordering ankle monitors for those who were exposed to the coronavirus but who won’t stay at home.
CNN reports that Bisig ordered an individual identified as D.L. to wear a global positioning device for the next two weeks. D.L is reportedly living with someone who tested positive for the coronavirus, as well as someone who is a presumptive case.
About a week ago, D.L. was ordered to self-quarantine for 14 days, the amount of time it takes for an infected individual to exhibit symptoms of the coronavirus. Family members, however, said he leaves his home often. (read more)

The Problem with Experts

 The Problem with Experts
Article by Gil Gutknecht in "Townhall":

If your name is Bill Gates, it’s safe to assume that you are not living paycheck to paycheck. So, his suggestion of closing down the entire economy for at least two months is of little consequence to him and his family. They won’t miss a mortgage payment or fret the MasterCard bill.

The same can be said for many of the other experts who are recommending a nearly total shutdown of American commerce. The creators of the alarming models. The ones who daily speculate about the potential death toll. The ones who groaned when Dr. Oz suggested that hydroxychloroquine, a drug commonly used to treat malaria for 70 years might be effective against this virus.

Remember the ones who even refused to allow Americans access to the drug? Almost all of them (including Governors) are government employees. They get paid every two weeks.

Their recommendations cost them little, personally.

Consider the costs of their expensive regulation proposals. With no personal downside for experts, it makes it easier to recommend draconian fifty dollar solutions to ten dollar problems.

The price tag is not their problem. And being wrong carries no consequence.

We’ve seen this play out before. The scientists who developed the hockey stick climate models were tenured professors and government-paid experts. The consensus of scientists who joined their chorus were as well. Hollywood types were happy to add their two cents worth, as long as they could keep their Gulfstreams. Scientists who worked in the private sector, the ones who raised legitimate questions about the models were shamed and called climate deniers. Remember?

The solutions for their supposed climate calamity now sound eerily familiar. We simply must shut down large sections of our economy. Energy companies and airlines first. The world will end in (fill in the blank) years if we don’t follow their expert advice. Fanning the flames of fear to force change is a proven strategy. They all get to pat themselves on the back, impose their recommendations on the unwashed masses while never missing a paycheck. They get a jolt of feel-good endorphins. We get a lower standard of living. But that of course, is not their problem.

Was it just a coincidence that our friends on the Left wanted to load up the $2 Trillion stimulus bill with thick slices of the Green New Deal? As long as we are already subsidizing the closing down large sections of the economy, why not make some parts permanent?

Much of the same can be said for many of our corporate leaders. While they prepare for massive layoffs of their employees, they line up for huge bailouts from Uncle Sam. We are already hearing about some slashing dividends for shareholders. How many of these execs are forgoing their generous pay packages?

We now see that shared sacrifice has its limits. The fact is that half of our citizens are being asked to bear the costs of “flattening the curve.” The other half continue to get their pensions, social security and salaries. 

Would government workers be as quiet if they were furloughed in proportionate numbers to the layoffs in the private sector? Would some professors be demanding that colleges reopen if they weren’t getting paid?

This is not to second guess or say that these experts are bad people. They are well-intentioned. We don’t have to question their motives. But, it is fair to question the recommendations from experts when they create enormous financial pain. Pain which they will never personally feel. Would those experts make the same recommendations if they were forced to lay off a third of their associates? People they know and work with?

With all do respect to Mr. Gates, assuming we follow his advice and close down everything for another two months, is there any guarantee that the virus won’t spring back when we do re-open? Couldn’t we be right back at square one? What then? 

No one would argue that the situation we face is not serious. Especially for seniors and those with compromised health conditions. We are in a war. But, if we are all in the same boat, then everyone should share in the consequences of expensive proposals. Especially the experts. 

https://townhall.com/columnists/gilgutknecht/2020/04/05/the-problem-with-experts-n2566365