With rail blockades lifted, effort begins to measure economic damage

CBC March 6, 2020

The blockades are over — for now.

Next comes the effort to calculate their economic impact — and it's just getting started.

Canada's transport minister said it will take six months to assess the damage, following weeks of turmoil that culminated in the lifting Thursday of the remaining Quebec rail blockades.

That longer-term uncertainty was underscored by other news that broke Thursday: Warren Buffett's investment company, Berkshire Hathaway, bailed on a $4 billion investment in a Quebec liquefied natural gas plant and blamed recent instability.

When asked what the economic effects might be during a trip to Washington, Transport Minister Marc Garneau replied: "Serious."

But he said a variety of factors need to be measured to fully grasp the effect, and that will take time.

Those factors include any layoffs; delayed or suspended industrial production; and adjustments to shipping routes.

He cited those shipping routes as an example of why it's difficult to immediately calculate an impact.

Garneau said some international shippers going through B.C. and, to a lesser extent, through Quebec and Nova Scotia, might have turned to temporary solutions — including ports in the United States.

Ryan Remiorz/The Canadian Press

What's unclear is how many suppliers will return to the same routes they used before the protests.

"I can't give you a precise number because these numbers will probably come out in about six months, because of the lag that occurs in assessing economic impact," Garneau told reporters in Washington.

Garneau was in the U.S. capital meeting with American officials and promoting Canada's effort to create new air-travel safety protocols in the wake of the disaster involving the Iranian-downed flight PS752.

Interest rate cut

Meanwhile, in Toronto, the Bank of Canada governor cited a series of reasons for this week's interest rate cut.

Stephen Poloz said the central bank was already contemplating a rate move before the coronavirus struck.

Blockades were one of several reasons.

"Not surprisingly, the threat to the global economy of COVID-19 — the coronavirus — played a central role in our deliberations," Stephen Poloz said, according to the prepared text of remarks delivered Thursday.

"Of course, the coronavirus is not the only issue on the table. … In addition to the impact of COVID-19, there are other factors: the strike by Ontario teachers, unusual weather and the rail blockades.

"We can hope that all of these factors prove to be temporary, but it seems that we are headed for at least another quarter of very slow economic growth."

Reduced growth

An early private-sector estimate estimates the cost of blockades at 0.3 per cent of Canada's economic activity for the current quarter.

For the sake of context, that's equivalent to the entire growth estimated for the Canadian economy in the final quarter of 2019.

Darryl Dyck/The Canadian Press


Scotiabank's deputy chief economist, Brett House, said it's early for a perfect assessment; but he said last year's CN Rail strike offers a useful reference point for what to expect.

He said his bank estimates that the strike cut two-tenths of one percent from quarterly GDP, and that the losses were later recovered — as demand for the stalled goods persisted, and they were eventually shipped to customers.

"That [activity in 2019] just got delayed. It essentially just moved growth from one period to the next," House said.

"We'd expect a similar kind of dynamic from the blockades — where the impact on shipping is compensated for in the next period, by an increase."

He cautioned, however, that the strike was easier to anticipate than the blockades, and the uncertainty over potential future disruptions could lead to a greater impact.

"A continued threat of blockades will lead people to find alternative transportation routes and alternative suppliers," House said.

"The uncertainty created by blockades potentially coming up at any time and any place could be a dampener on growth, going forward."

The lifting of blockades remains tentative, as Wet'suwet'en people consider the provisional agreement reached with government officials in a dispute involving a natural gas pipeline.

Protesters pack up camp at B.C. legislature after five arrests Wednesday night

The Canadian Press March 5, 2020


VICTORIA — Dozens of Indigenous youth and their supporters packed blankets and tarps Thursday, ending a 17-day protest at British Columbia's legislature that saw a fire burning constantly at the front steps and people camping overnight at the building's ceremonial gates.

The conclusion of the protest followed the arrests of five people who refused to leave the building Wednesday night after meeting with Scott Fraser, B.C.'s minister of Indigenous relations and reconciliation.

Ta'Kaiya Blaney said the Indigenous youth are leaving the legislature but their movement for the rights of Aboriginal Peoples continues. She said the protest to support Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs in northwest B.C. who oppose a natural gas pipeline through their traditional territories was successful.

"The Indigenous youth are coming together in ways that go beyond the pipeline," said Blaney. "It's about Indigenous sovereignty and it's about affirming for our young people that we can take our power back."

She said the youth leaders decided to stay inside the legislature building Wednesday night because Fraser would not commit to stopping the Coastal GasLink pipeline opposed by the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs.

"Our demands have always been that Coastal GasLink be removed from Wet'suwet'en sovereign land and that a good faith relationship with Wet'suwet'en people cannot take place while that industry and that pipeline construction is happening without consent," said Blaney.

Coastal GasLink is building a natural gas pipeline from Dawson Creek to Kitimat. It is part of a $40 billion liquefied natural gas export project in Kitimat.

Fraser said he was disappointed the meeting with Indigenous youth leaders resulted in arrests.

He said he invited the youth leaders into the legislature as a gesture of goodwill to discuss ongoing deliberations with the West'suwet'en.

Outside the legislature on Thursday, Fraser said the meeting lasted 90 minutes, twice as long as it was scheduled.

"They ended in a good way, I thought," he added.

The minister said he believed his offer of respectful talks would conclude with the youth leaving the building in an orderly manner.

"It is the basis for the work we have done with the hereditary chiefs and I thought that would be reciprocated," Fraser said. "I found in my time as minister that by providing that respect it is usually reciprocated, and I'm very disappointed it was not."

Liberal house leader Mary Polak called Fraser's judgment "appalling" because it taxed police resources as extra officers were called to the building to make arrests.

During a testy question period, Premier John Horgan said the arrests and ongoing Indigenous rights protests across Canada are marking a tumultuous time in Canadian history. He urged the Opposition to work with the government to resolve Indigenous issues rather than point fingers.

"We agreed in November as a unit, every member of this house, to work towards genuine reconciliation," said Horgan, referring to the unanimous adoption of the United Nations Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

"That's what we're trying to do," he said. "Is the mob outside helpful? I would suggest not."

Blaney called the premier's comments about a mob "irresponsible."

Victoria police said five people were taken into custody at about 9 p.m. Wednesday and each faces a charge of mischief. They were released on conditions that they stay away from the legislature grounds and a surrounding park.

Police said there were no injuries in the arrests and they alleged the protesters called for others to surround the legislature building.

They said officers were "actively obstructed" and because of the size of the crowd, it took several hours for the protesters to be safely transported to police headquarters.

"Officers who were responding to the scene were surrounded by over 100 protesters and were unable to respond to emergency calls for service," police said in a news release.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 5, 2020.

Dirk Meissner, The Canadian Press

Americans divided on party lines over risk from coronavirus: Reuters/Ipsos poll
 March 6, 2020

MTA workers disinfect the subway station while people exit the station in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York

By Brad Heath

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans who now find themselves politically divided over seemingly everything are now forming two very different views of another major issue: the dangers of the new coronavirus.

Democrats are about twice as likely as Republicans to say the coronavirus poses an imminent threat to the United States, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted this week.

And more Democrats than Republicans say they are taking steps to be prepared, including washing their hands more often or limiting their travel plans.

Poll respondents who described themselves as Republicans and did not see the coronavirus as a threat said it still felt remote because cases had not been detected close to home and their friends and neighbors did not seem to be worried, either.

“I haven’t changed a single thing,” Cindi Hogue, who lives outside Little Rock, Arkansas, told Reuters. “It’s not a reality to me yet. It hasn’t become a threat enough yet in my world.”

Many of the U.S. cases that have been reported so far have been in Washington state and California, more than 1,000 miles away from Arkansas.

Politics was not a factor in her view of the seriousness of the virus, Hogue said. Other Republican respondents interviewed echoed that sentiment.

But the political divide is nonetheless significant: About four of every 10 Democrats said they thought the new coronavirus poses an imminent threat, compared to about two of every 10 Republicans.

Part of the explanation, said Robert Talisse, a Vanderbilt University philosophy professor who studies political polarization, is that political divisiveness often works in subtle ways.

Americans increasingly surround themselves with people who share the same political views, so partisan perceptions echo not just through the television channels people watch and websites and social media they consume, but through their friends and neighbors, too.

"This partisan-sort stuff is real; it just doesn’t feel like that’s what’s going on because our partisan selves just feel like ourselves,” Talisse said.

A `FALSE NUMBER'

Americans, who often consume news based on their political preferences, have received two different views of the virus's potential impact.

Amid tumbling stock markets, President Donald Trump has sought to portray himself as on top of the health crisis, but he has been criticized for being overly optimistic about its potential impact and for sometimes incorrect statements on the science of the virus.

Trump has accused the media and his political adversaries of trying to derail his re-election campaign by amping up alarm over the dangers posed by the virus. He has largely sought to cast it as a comparatively minor threat, comparing its risk to the less deadly seasonal flu.

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh told listeners last week that, “The coronavirus is the common cold” and was merely being “weaponized as yet another element to bring down Donald Trump.”

Trump told Sean Hannity's Fox News show on Wednesday that he thought World Health Organization estimates of the virus' death rate were a "false number," that he had a hunch the rate was much lower, "a fraction of 1 percent." The WHO said this week that the coronavirus killed about 3.4% of the people who contracted it worldwide.

House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused Trump on Thursday of spreading misinformation about coronavirus' death rate, saying the "reality is in the public domain."

The outbreak has killed more than 3,400 people and spread across more than 90 nations. Eleven people in the United States have died from the coronavirus, the CDC said Friday.

National media and other cable news channels have been filled with accounts of a spreading sickness and the U.S. deaths. Public health authorities have sent increasingly urgent warnings about the need to be ready for quarantines and school closures.

Exactly how big a role these divergent messages have driven Americans’ perception of the danger they face is difficult to measure, but experts said they could only fuel the political divisions that are so vast that they long ago started having an impact on everything from how Americans vote to where they buy coffee.

“Our hyper-polarization is so strong that we don’t even assess a potential health crisis in the same way. And so it impedes our ability to address it," said Jennifer McCoy, a Georgia State political science professor who studies polarization.



About half of Democrats said they are washing their hands more often now because of the virus, compared to about four in 10 Republicans, according to the poll. About 8% of Democrats said they had changed their travel plans, compared to about 3% of Republicans.

More than half of Republicans, about 54%, said they had not altered their daily routines because of the virus, compared to about 40% of Democrats.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online, in English, from March 2-3 in the United States. It gathered responses from 1,115 American adults, including 527 Democrats and 396 Republicans. The poll has a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of about 3 percentage points.


(Reporting by Brad Heath; additional reporting by Chris Kahn, Julie Steenhuysen and John Whitesides,; Editing by Ross Colvin and Alistair Bell)

Can't find Purell or other hand sanitizers? 
Here's how to make it at home with rubbing alcohol

Kelly Tyko USA TODAY

Corrections & Clarifications: A photo and video on an earlier version of this story used rubbing alcohol with a lower than recommended percentage of alcohol in it. 

The CDC advises 60% alcohol in hand sanitizer so it is recommended to use 99% isopropyl alcohol.

If you're not prepared to fork over big bucks for a small bottle of hand sanitizer, there's another option beyond good old-fashioned hand-washing with soap and water.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says hand-washing with soap and water is the best way to clean your hands, but when that's not an option, the agency recommends using an alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol.

Along with face masks and sanitizing wipes, alcohol-based sanitizing gel has been one of the most in-demand items as coronavirus fears have sparked panic buying that has left store shelves bare. That panic buying has brought complaints of price gouging, with a two-pack of Purell 12-ounce bottles selling for a marked-up $149.

For a price comparison, during back-to-school shopping this summer, 8-ounce bottles of Purell, a popular item on teachers' wish lists, cost less than $2 after sales and coupons.

Now, shoppers are going the do-it-yourself route and making batches of homemade hand sanitizer withitems that most people have at home.

How to prepare for coronavirus: The shopping list for your own home quarantine kit

During a press briefing of the Coronavirus Task Force, CDC Director Robert Redfield advised the American public to vigorously wash hands with soap and water for 20 seconds.

“If they want to use the hand sanitizers, that’s another option,” Redfield said. “But I don’t want people to think that it’s inferior to what we've recommended for decades.”

Preventing coronavirus: Wash hands

According to the CDC, this is how to properly clean your hands.

With an alcohol-based hand sanitizer:

• Put product on hands and rub hands together
• Cover all surfaces until hands feel dry
• This should take around 20 seconds

With soap and water:

• Wet your hands with warm water. Use liquid soap if possible. Apply a nickel- or quarter-sized amount of soap to your hands.
• Rub your hands together until the soap forms a lather and then rub all over the top of your hands, in between your fingers and the area around and under the fingernails.
• Continue rubbing your hands for at least 15 seconds. Need a timer? Imagine singing the “Happy Birthday” song twice.
• Rinse your hands well under running water.
• Dry your hands using a paper towel if possible. Then use your paper towel to turn off the faucet and to open the door if needed.

Do-it-yourself hand sanitizer recipes:  rubbing alcohol

There are multiple recipes circulating about how to make your own sanitizer. One posted on ThoughtCo.com by chemistry expert Anne Marie Helmenstine, requires two ingredients: isopropyl alcohol (99% rubbing alcohol) and aloe vera gel.

The ThoughtCo recipe calls for two-thirds of a cup of rubbing alcohol or ethanol and a third-cup of aloe vera gel. According to the reference site, essential oils can also be added to it.

Dr. David Agus, a professor of medicine and engineering at University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine, said it’s “definitely OK" and a "great idea" to make your own hand sanitizer.

“The bottom line is most of these are 70% of alcohol or higher,” Agus said, adding there’s no magic number. “The virus isn't going to say, 'Hey, you're 59% alcohol, therefore I'm going to be alive.' As long as you're in that range, I think you're doing OK. This virus has what we call an 'envelope' on it, and the envelope is very sensitive to alcohol, which kills the virus.”


DO NOT USE VODKA USE ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL

There are also widely circulated recipes using vodka as the main ingredient, including one posted on Good Housekeeping magazine's website.

Two biology professors from Benedictine University in Lisle, Illinois, say consumers should pay attention to the percentage of alcohol present when using vodka.

Tanya Crum, an assistant professor, and Jayashree Sarathy, an associate professor, told USA TODAY that the concentration of ethanol in 80 proof vodka is only 40% and is "not concentrated enough to kill viruses." They suggest 180 proof spirits, which have 90% ethanol.

Agus, who specializes in treating patients with advanced cancer, recommends making a recipe with isopropyl alcohol or ethanol alcohol over vodka. But if you have to use vodka, he also suggests 180 proof or a higher percentage of alcohol “have some benefit.”

When will hand sanitizer be restocked?

Purell, the best-selling hand sanitizer, is pumping up production and stores say they are talking to suppliers to restock.

Purell says it has seen higher demand from health care facilities in addition to stores. It is adding more shifts and having employees work overtime at the two Ohio facilities where most Purell is made, said Samantha Williams, a spokeswoman for its parent company Gojo Industries.

Walmart, the world's largest retailer, has seen higher demand for cleaning supplies and other items, similar to when shoppers start preparing for a hurricane. The retailer says it is working with suppliers to restock those items, including hand sanitizer.

Coronavirus 'panic buying':Here's why we all need to calm down

Toilet paper, bottled water, face masks:Coronavirus fears empty store shelves as shoppers stock up
Preventing coronavirus: Wash hands
Contributing: Associated Press

HOW TO WASH YOUR HANDS

Preventing coronavirus: Wash hands

According to the CDC, this is how to properly clean your hands.

With an alcohol-based hand sanitizer:

• Put product on hands and rub hands together
• Cover all surfaces until hands feel dry
• This should take around 20 seconds

With soap and water:

• Wet your hands with warm water. Use liquid soap if possible. Apply a nickel- or quarter-sized amount of soap to your hands.
• Rub your hands together until the soap forms a lather and then rub all over the top of your hands, in between your fingers and the area around and under the fingernails.
• Continue rubbing your hands for at least 15 seconds. Need a timer? Imagine singing the “Happy Birthday” song twice.
• Rinse your hands well under running water.
• Dry your hands using a paper towel if possible. Then use your paper towel to turn off the faucet and to open the door if needed.

Democrats Propose Emergency Paid Sick Days To Address Coronavirus

March 6, 2020

Sen. Patty Murray introduced a bill in the Senate to guarantee workers two weeks of leave during a public health emergency. (Photo: Bill Clark via Getty Images)More

Members of Congress introduced a bill Friday that would assure U.S. workers can take paid sick leave, if needed, during the coronavirus outbreak.

The legislation proposed by Democrats would require employers to grant workers 14 paid sick days to be used in the event of a public health emergency. Workers would separately accrue up to seven sick days over the course of a year under the bill, which was introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in the Senate and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) in the House.

There is no federal law currently guaranteeing workers paid sick leave, although many cities and states have implemented their own. The lack of a national standard has drawn perhaps unprecedented attention in recent weeks as the new coronavirus reached U.S. shores and infected at least 200 people as of Friday. More than 100,000 cases and 3,000 deaths have been confirmed worldwide.

Public health experts and employers in the U.S. have advised workers to stay home if they exhibit symptoms of COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus. But that guidance has put workers who lack paid sick leave in a jam: either stay home and forgo each day’s pay, or clock in and potentially sicken colleagues or customers.

A little less than three-quarters of private sector workers have access to paid sick leave, according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A large share of the 27% who don’t have it are clustered in lower-wage service sectors like retail and food service, where workers interact not only with their colleagues but with the public.

Higher-paid white-collar workers are far more likely to enjoy sick leave, including 94% of those in management, business and financial occupations.

Backers of a paid sick leave mandate have often argued that it’s a matter of public health and social justice. But the coronavirus scare has brought forth a strong macroeconomic argument as well: If millions of workers suddenly aren’t collecting paychecks, it could wreak even more damage on the economy. Global supply lines have already tightened up and stock markets have tumbled.

Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO labor federation, said Friday that paid sick leave could help keep commerce flowing if the outbreak in the U.S. worsens.

“It would help insulate the economy from a real bad downturn,” he said.

Under the Democratic proposal, workers would be eligible to use the two weeks’ worth of emergency sick days when their workplace or their child’s school is closed, or when they or a family member has been quarantined because of an outbreak. The standard seven days could be used whenever necessary.

The emergency legislation builds on a proposal that Democrats have been introducing for years without success. Despite the popularity of sick leave requirements among the general public ― including most Republicans ― GOP lawmakers have long refused to join with Democrats to make sure everyone has access to sick leave.

Friday’s bill stands a strong chance of passing in the Democratic-controlled House but is likely to hit a wall in the GOP-controlled Senate, where the Republican majority isn’t keen on employer mandates.

“Mitch McConnell hasn’t shown much proclivity to do things that are good for workers,” Trumka said of the Senate majority leader. But given the economic concerns over coronavirus, “he might be interested in doing that.”

If the legislation comes to a floor vote in the House soon, it could put Republicans in a position where they are voting against a popular proposal during a public health emergency. Murray urged her colleagues in both chambers to pass the bill “without delay.”

“Workers want to do the right thing for themselves, their families, and their communities,” she said in a statement. “So especially in the middle of public health crises like this, staying home sick shouldn’t have to mean losing a paycheck or a job.”

DeLauro said stronger access to sick leave would put the U.S. on par with other developed nations and make the public safer.

“The lack of paid sick days could make coronavirus harder to contain in the United States,” she warned.

The University of Washington became the first U.S. college to close classrooms on Friday, and other schools may follow suit. Airlines have already been hit hard as travelers bail on flights, and large employers like IBM and Facebook have told employees at certain offices to stay home.

On Friday, President Donald Trump signed an $8.3 billion emergency spending package to combat the virus. More than a third of that money will support vaccine research and development. Other funds will go toward medical supplies, preparedness and prevention. The federal government has been harshly criticized over its lack of readiness to fight an outbreak, with testing kits in short supply and conflicting statements between high-level members of the Trump administration and public health officials.

Beyond the spending package, worker groups and public health advocates have been urging federal agencies to do more to combat the spread of the virus. In addition to a sick leave law, labor unions have been urging the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue an emergency standard for infectious disease, so that employers have clear guidelines they are required to follow during an outbreak.

Trumka said the AFL-CIO sent a petition to OSHA on Friday, calling on the agency to implement a standard that was developed before Trump took office but then shelved. He noted that health care and service workers are most likely to contract the virus through their jobs. OSHA did not respond to HuffPost when asked earlier this week whether it would institute a new regulation to deal with COVID-19.

“Most employers are just flatfooted right now,” Trumka said. “And they’re not getting much guidance or help from the federal government.”

US Supreme Court divided in 1st big abortion case of Trump era

The Canadian Press March 4, 2020

WASHINGTON — A seemingly divided Supreme Court struggled Wednesday with its first major abortion case of the Trump era, leaving Chief Justice John Roberts as the likely deciding vote.

Roberts did not say enough to tip his hand in an hour of spirited arguments at the high court.

The court's election-year look at a Louisiana dispute could reveal how willing the more conservative court is to roll back abortion rights. A decision should come by late June.

The outcome could have huge consequences at a time when several states have passed laws, being challenged in the courts, that would ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, as early as six weeks.

The justices are weighing a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. A federal judge found that just one of Louisiana's three abortion clinics would remain open if the law is allowed to take effect. The federal appeals court in New Orleans, though, upheld the law, setting up the Supreme Court case.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted, as she had before, that “among medical procedures, first trimester abortion is among the safest, far safer than childbirth." The abortion clinic in Shreveport at the heart of the case reported transferring just four patients to a hospital out of roughly 70,000 it has treated over 23 years, Justice Elena Kagan noted.

Justice Samuel Alito said the clinic had once had its license suspended, in 2010.

Perhaps the biggest question is whether the court will overrule a 2016 decision in which it struck down a similar law in Texas. Since then, Donald Trump was elected president and he appointed two justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who have shifted the court to the right. Even with those two additions to the court, Roberts almost certainly holds the deciding vote.



When the justices temporarily blocked the Louisiana law from taking effect a year ago, Roberts joined the court's four liberal justices to put it on hold. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were among the four conservatives who would have allowed the law to take effect.

Those preliminary votes do not bind the justices when they undertake a thorough review of an issue, but they often signal how a case will come out.

In more than 14 years as chief justice, Roberts has generally voted to uphold abortion restrictions, including in the Texas case four years ago.

It is for now unclear whether Roberts' outlook on the Louisiana case has been affected by his new role as the court's swing justice since Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement, his concern about the court being perceived as a partisan institution and his respect for a prior decision of the court, even one he disagreed with.

One possible outcome is that Roberts and the other conservative justices could find a way to allow Louisiana to enforce the law, without overruling the decision from 2016 in which the court struck down a similar law in Texas. One avenue raised by lawyers for the state and the Trump administration is that the doctors didn't try hard enough to work out arrangements with the hospitals, even though the trial court found that doctors failed to secure admitting privileges at 15 hospitals over an 18-month period.

That result would be a defeat for abortion rights advocates who have argued that the laws are virtually indistinguishable. But it would allow Roberts something of a middle ground between taking a big step to limit abortion access and reaffirming the court's abortion rulings.



Roberts asked the same question, in slightly different form, to each of the three lawyers who argued before the court. The court in the Texas case found there was no benefit to the women the law was ostensibly intended to help and struck it down as an “undue burden” on women's right to an abortion in violation of the Constitution.

“I understand the idea that the impact might be different in different places, but as far as the benefits of the law, that's going to be the same in each state, isn't it?" Roberts asked Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill.

The Louisiana and Texas situations are not identical, Murrill told the court. “The laws are different, the facts are different, the regulatory structures are different," Murrill said.

Roberts' inquiry seemed to dovetail with questions from Kavanaugh, whose interest was in discerning whether admitting privileges laws would still impose an “”undue burden" in a state that made it easy for abortion providers to get them.

“Could an admitting privileges law of this kind ever have a valid purpose, in your view?" Kavanaugh asked lawyer Julie Rikelman, representing the Shreveport clinic.

Rikelman replied: “No, Your Honor. The medical consensus against these laws is clear."

The court also has agreed to review whether abortion providers have the right to go into court to represent the interests of women seeking abortions. A ruling in favour of the state's argument that the providers lack the right to sue in these circumstances, known as third-party standing, would be a devastating blow to abortion rights advocates since doctors and clinics, not individual women who want abortions, file most challenges to abortion restrictions.

But apart from Alito, the justices did not seem especially interested in resolving the case on the standing issue.

Outside the court, protesters on both sides filled the sidewalks just as they have for earlier high court cases on abortion.

Inside, Justice Stephen Breyer sought to capture searing debate over the issue. “I understand there are good arguments on both sides. Indeed, in the country people have very strong feelings and a lot of people morally think it's wrong and a lot of people morally think the opposite is wrong," Breyer said, though he left little doubt he would vote in favour of abortion rights.

Mark Sherman, The Associated Press

MSNBC’s ‘Hardball’ Problem Wasn’t Only Chris Matthews (Analysis)

Brian Steinberg March 4, 2020

It’s fair to say MSNBC had a “Hardball” problem. Perhaps it wasn’t just the one everyone was talking about.

Chris Matthews’ growing series of on-air gaffes in the midst of intensifying coverage of the 2020 campaign made keeping him on the air difficult for MSNBC executives, as did a litany of troubling stories about his behavior toward female guests on set and behind the scenes. Yet the show itself, based on a concept that worked in the late 1990s, was also becoming outdated.

More from Variety
Chris Matthews Departs MSNBC's 'Hardball' Amid Controversy

Matthews had a long tenure as a top political insider, working as a speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter and chief of staff for the very influential Tip O’Neill when he was the Speaker of the House. But he gained early momentum in TV as an occasional panelist on :”The McLaughlin Group,” whose host, John McLaughlin, helped blaze a trail for programming led by a moderator who wasn’t afraid to butt in; who made nicknames for his panelists part of the show; and who viewed political discussion as a sort of combat theater for Beltway aficionados.

Chris Matthews carried on many of those traditions. On “Hardball,” his pugnacious enthusiasm for politics often got the better of him, prompting him to interrupt his guests, or at the very least, talk over them as they tried to respond to his questions and provocations. This wasn’t some persona he played on air. Matthews had a palpable love for talking about the political game, and often could not stop himself from chatting endlessly about it. Some interviews with him could turn into monologues.

And while “The McLaughlin Group” recently returned without its titular host, who passed away in 2016, “Hardball” continued in much the same way it had over the years since Matthews got his own show on the now-defunct “America’s Talking,” the cable network that was eventually transformed into MSNBC.

That isn’t the format MSNBC has been most enthusiastic about in recent years. Behind the scenes, executives at the network and in the upper echelons at NBCUniversal have kept an eye on both Brian Williams’ “The 11th Hour” and Nicolle Wallace’s “Deadline: The White House.” Both shows keep the “salon” concept of a host juggling multiple guests burnished by “McLaughlin” and “Hardball,”, but with a significant twist: Wallace and Williams make their contributors the stars of the segments, praising their credentials and their proximity to the swirl around whatever topic might be under discussion.

Williams gives considerable time to telling viewers about his guests’ backgrounds, the details of which are printed upon cards he carries with him to his anchor desk. Wallace takes so much pride in her bookings that she spends precious time after her broadcasts tweeting out clips from her program and thanking the guest at the center of each one.

There may be other reasons to put “Hardball” in the shed. In 2019, the show ranked third in the key audience demographic favored by advertisers, people between 25 and 54. According to Nielsen, “Hardball’s” tally in the category fell below that of time-slot rivals “The Story with Martha MacCallum” on Fox News Channel and “Erin Burnett Outfront” on CNN.

Guessing who might eventually take over the “Hardball” slot is easy. Anyone who likes can take a look at the MSNBC daytime schedule and throw their favorite anchor into the mix.

But there is some reason to consider Wallace, whose 4 p.m. ratings in the demo were tied with those of time-slot competitor Jake Tapper in 2019, but who had a bigger overall audience than either CNN’s Tapper or her other rival, Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto (Cavuto had better numbers in the 25-to-54 audience). MSNBC executives have mulled the idea of expanding her “White House” to two hours, and a rejiggering of the schedule could use Matthews’ hour to do that (providing Wallace wants to work a later schedule).

There has been some press speculation about MSNBC weekend host Joy Reid taking the role, and that is certainly possible, as Reid has filled in for many of the network’s primetime hosts. But Reid’s “A.M. Joy” is one of MSNBC’s best-performing shows on weekends, where the network is placing more emphasis on programming in an effort to beat CNN in the demo.

MSNBC has also been in early talks with former Fox News Channel anchor Shepard Smith about a potential role, and Matthews’ departure would seem to provide an opening the two might find worth discussing. Smith’s non-compete with Fox News is expected to come to an end in June or July. MSNBC is at present expected to fill the 7 p.m. hour with various anchors.

No matter who ends up with the slot, it’s a fair bet the “Hardball” format won’t continue with them. Like “Crossfire,” the long-running CNN staple that pit blue versus red for more than two decades, the show had its moment in the sun. If an anchor should emerge who can take an aggressive stance like Matthews and bring the audience along once again, well, perhaps MSNBC will take another swing.

Chris Matthews Departs MSNBC’s ‘Hardball’ Amid Controversy
 
Brian Steinberg Senior TV Editor VARIETY

CREDIT: LARRY MARANO/SHUTTERSTOCK

Chris Matthews is abruptly stepping down from MSNBC’s “Hardball” amid scrutiny of recent on-air remarks as well as speculation about behind-the-scenes behavior.

The veteran anchor and political operative said on his program Monday night that he was leaving the cable-news outlet, putting an end to a long-running show that was featured on three different networks and part of the news landscape since 1994. Monday’s broadcast is Matthews’ last, and a rotating group of anchors is expected to lead the hour until MSNBC executives come up with more definitive plans.

”Let me start with my headline tonight: I’m retiring,” said Matthews, opening his first and final segment on the program. He added: “After conversations with MSNBC, I’ve decided tonight will be my last ‘Hardball.’ Let me tell you why: The younger generations out there are ready to take the reins.” He suggested younger people were bringing “better standards than we grew up with – fair standards” to the workplace, and acknowledged he had in the past addressed women in an outdated manner. “For making such comments in the past, I’m sorry,” he said.

In less than two minutes, he signed off and handed over the hour to MSNBC anchor Steve Kornacki, who seemed taken aback by the assignment.

Matthews had been under close watch by critics, apologizing last week after making an awkward comparison on air between Senator Bernie Sanders’ victory in the Nevada caucuses and the Nazis’ World War II takeover of France. The remark prompted public outrage from Sanders aides, and fanned complaints about MSNBC’s coverage of his campaign. “I’m sorry for comparing anything from that tragic era in which so many suffered, especially the Jewish people, to an electoral result of which you were the well-deserved winner,” Matthews said in an on-air mea culpa to the politician.

Adding to the recent spotlight: a female journalist last week wrote an account in GQ alleging Matthews made inappropriate remarks to her while she was getting ready to appear on this show. That resurfaced reports that Matthews had been reprimanded in 1999 after a similar incident that resulted in a settlement to an employee, as well as claims that Matthews treated female politicians less respectfully.

Some of the recent attention sped up discussions that had been taking place between the anchor and MSNBC about when he would retire, according to a person familiar with the matter, resulting in a sooner-than-expected departure. Matthews is not expected to host any sort of special program looking back at his years on the air.

“Hardball” occupies valuable real estate. At 7 p.m., it funnels viewers into MSNBC’s primetime lineup, where advertising costs more and the cable-news networks fight with one another for the medium’s biggest audiences. MSNBC has in recent months contemplated a shift of some of its late-afternoon programs, and the absence of “Hardball” on its schedule could help those plans gain traction. One option executives have considered is expanding Nicolle Wallace’s program “Deadline: White House” to two hours from one. Her show currently airs at 4 p.m. , followed by Chuck Todd’s “MTP Daily” and “The Beat with Ari Melber.” MSNBC has also been in recent discussions with former Fox News Channel anchor Shepard Smith, who is believed to want to return to the news business with a show that would rely heavily on no-nonsense reporting.

He built a cable-news franchise in an era when there were fewer of them, and maintained it for more than two decades. “Hardball” relied on Matthews’ long years spent in Washington, where he worked his way up from being a staffer for various Democratic candidates to a speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter and chief of staff to Tip O’Neill, the durable Speaker of the House for a decade. The show relied on its host’s penchant for being pugnacious, though not enough on most nights to distract from discussions of the political cycle. “Let’s play Hardball,” Matthews would say each night to open the proceedings.

“Hardball” got its start on the cable network once known as “America’s Talking” in 1994.” It was based on the host’s first book, “Hardball: How Politics Is Played Told by One Who Knows the Game,” which was released in 1988. “Hardball” would move to CNBC in 1997, and then to MSNBC in 1999, where it has stayed for more than 20 years. For a time, Matthews was parodied regular on “Saturday Night Live,” with cast member Darrell Hammond impersonating him frequently.

Matthews had a definite love for the scrum, mixing it up with journalists and politicians, even as the recent news cycle swirling around President Donald Trump, stoked to new speeds by social media, has forced cable news into faster, more aggressive programming. “People are getting home. They are hearing about it. They want the full story,” the host told Variety in 2017. The feeling, he says, “is a great rush.”

---30---

Trump Plans to Fight Ruling Risking Refinery Biofuel Waivers

Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Mario Parker and Jennifer Jacobs Bloomberg March 5, 2020


(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump has decided to defend in court the U.S. government’s power to broadly waive biofuel requirements for many oil refineries.

The decision to appeal a federal court ruling imperiling those exemptions follows an intervention by Attorney General Bill Barr and an intense pressure campaign by oil-state senators, including Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican. The plan was described by five people familiar with the matter who asked for anonymity before a formal announcement.

At issue is a January decision by a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver invalidating waivers exempting three refineries from requirements to blend biofuel into gasoline and diesel. Federal law authorizes those waivers for small refineries facing an economic hardship.

Yet the judges said the law also limits that relief to refineries getting “extensions” of previous waivers and pointed out that none of the three refineries at issue had “consistently received an exemption” in previous years.

The appeal plan would mark a reversal for the White House, where top officials as recently as a week and a half ago had planned to accept the ruling and apply it nationwide. That approach would have meant just a handful of U.S. refineries -- no more than seven -- would be eligible for the exemptions.

Previous Trump administration decisions on biofuel policy have been upended amid fierce lobbying.

But this move would be a victory for oil companies and their allies on Capitol Hill, who argued the waivers are essential to preserve the economic health of refineries and blue-collar jobs at the facilities. They have raised the specter of layoffs and plant closures in Wyoming, Texas and the political battleground state of Pennsylvania -- warning the White House in recent days that if the administration didn’t fight the ruling, there could be repercussions for the president on Election Day in November.

Oil industry advocates argued to administration officials that the court’s interpretation defies federal law that says refineries may seek relief “at any time,” conflicts with longstanding EPA practice and is at odds with a separate ruling by the 4th Circuit.

The Trump administration has until the end of Monday to appeal the ruling en banc -- asking the full 10th Circuit to consider the case. Even without the administration joining in, refiners involved in the case are expected to seek a rehearing.

An appeal would be a blow to producers of corn-based ethanol and soybean-based biodiesel, who have complained the Trump administration too freely handed out the waivers and undermined a 15-year-old federal law mandating the use of those plant-based alternatives. Biofuel allies have also warned Trump of political fallout -- in farm states, such as Iowa.

Nine biofuel and agriculture advocacy groups, including the Renewable Fuels Association and National Biodiesel Board, warned an appeal “would be viewed as a stunning betrayal of America’s rural workers and farmers.”

“We cannot stress enough how important this decision is to the future of the rural economy and to President Trump’s relationship with leaders and voters across the heartland,” the organizations said in a joint statement Thursday night.

---30---

SEE

 https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=BIOFUELS

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=BIOFUEL

Gen X denied a mortgage more than any other generation, study shows

Sarah Paynter Reporter Yahoo Finance March 5, 2020

Gen Xers may not be able to take advantage of the historically low mortgage rates: Applicants who are 40 to 54 years old are being denied home loans more than any other age group.

Mortgage lenders are denying Gen X applicants because of their low credit scores and high debt-to-income ratios, according to a new report released Thursday by the National Association of Realtors, which compiled responses from 5,870 homebuyers, between the ages of 22 and 94, from July 2018 to June 2019.

“Generation X has a higher share of denied mortgages because they are most likely to have sold a distressed house or have been underwater during the recession, plus they may have taken on more debt from their children’s student loans,” said Jessica Lautz, vice president of demographics and behavior insights for the National Association of Realtors.


LOAN DENIED CONCEPT

Mortgage lenders denied 7% of Gen Xers’ applications, compared to a 5% average denial rate across all other age groups. Last year, 6% of Gen Xers were denied loans compared to a 4% average denial across all applicants.

Great Recession aftermath

A quarter of Gen Xers’ mortgages were denied because of their high debt-to-income ratios, and 25% were because of their low credit scores, the study shows. Debt and credit score concerns are leftover from impacts of the Great Recession over a decade ago, said Lautz.

Gen Xers are more likely to have lost money on their house in the Great Recession, said Lautz. The study found that 15% of Gen Xers have sold a distressed property since becoming a homeowner, the highest of any age group, compared to an average of 9% among all buyers.

Plus, many have taken on loans, including student loans for their children. Credit card debt was the biggest burden on Gen Xers, followed by student loan debt. As a consequence, debt has delayed Gen Xers’ homebuying plans an average of five years, compared to the average four-year deferral across all generations.

“While there are a lot of myths about how each generation acts, Generation X does behave differently,” said Lautz. “They face different family pressures.”

THE GEN X'ERS I KNOW BOUGHT THEIR HOMES EARLY WHEN THEY STARTED FAMILIES WHICH MEANS BY NOW THEY ARE CLOSE TOHAVING PAID OFF THEIR MORTGAGES. 

MILLENNIAL'S I KNOW HAVE HAD A HARDER TIME OF IT.