Saturday, March 14, 2020

The real Charles Lindbergh behind 'The Plot Against America'

ENTERTAINMENT NEWS 
MARCH 13, 2020 



Aviator Charles Lindbergh, wearing a helmet and goggles, is pictured in the open cockpit of airplane at Lambert Field in St. Louis in the 1920s. He's perhaps best known for being the first person to fly solo across the Atlantic. File Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress

March 13 (UPI) -- Charles A. Lindbergh was a lot of things. He was an air age legend who became the first pilot to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean. He was a father, who publicly faced a parent's worst nightmare -- the kidnapping and death of a child -- in what came to be known as the trial of the century. He was an aviation consultant who assisted companies making military aircraft during World War II.

But he also had an interest in politics, campaigning for the United States to stay out of the war and supporting the anti-Semitic, pro-fascist America First Committee.

So what if Lindbergh had become president in 1941?

That's the question a new HBO series, The Plot Against America, asks.

The series, based on the 2004 Philip Roth novel of the same name, is set to premiere Monday. Starring Winona Ryder, Zoe Kazan, Morgan Spector, John Turturro, Anthony Boyle, Azhy Robertson and Caleb Malis, it imagines a world in which Lindbergh defeated President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1940 election.

Instead of FDR winning a third term in office and eventually leading the country into war after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the series lays out the story of a United States torn apart by anti-Semitism, fear and propaganda. It also glimpses a world coming more and more under the power of Nazi Germany.

To some it may be hard to reconcile the idea of Lindbergh working in coordination with the Nazis, as the series and book posit. Hailed by many Americans as a national hero, his record-setting Spirit of St. Louis airplane is on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.


But much of the fictionalized story is in fact inspired by the real events of Lindbergh's life.

Aviation legend

Lindbergh is perhaps best remembered for his numerous aviation records and milestones, capturing the world's imagination as he traversed the globe in his single-engine Ryan monoplane. He began his flying career as a U.S. Air Mail pilot in 1925 after receiving formal training in the U.S. Army Air Service, a precursor to the Air Force.

He made headlines for the first time in 1927 at age 25 when he became the first pilot to fly solo across the Atlantic. He won the $25,000 Orteig Prize for his efforts, beating out other famous aviators and explorers such as Richard E. Byrd and Clarence Chamberlin.

A team of more than 100 United Press correspondents were posted at news offices across the United States and on remote coasts along Lindbergh's route to quickly relay news of his progress and success. In theaters, United Press bulletins were read to audiences amid wild cheering.

Col. Charles A. Lindbergh rides in an open-air car up lower Broadway with New York Mayor James J. Walker in a photo taken in 1927. UPI File Photo

He received the Medal of Honor, normally only awarded for acts of heroism in military combat.

Lindbergh's achievement inspired an interest in aviation and he used his fame to promote transatlantic passenger service and an increase in air mail.

In The Plot Against America, Lindbergh's interest in aviation plays out in his unique campaigning technique in which he criss-crossed the United States in his own airplane, speaking to supporters on the grounds of small, local airfields.

Lindbergh baby

Tragedy struck the Lindbergh family in 1932, when his 20-month-old son, Charles Lindbergh Jr., was kidnapped from the family home in East Amwell, N.J. After searching the house, the family found a ransom note demanding $50,000 in exchange for the baby.

The Lindbergh family and authorities negotiated an exchange of the money, and though an intermediary handed over the money to a man named "John," the baby was not found at the location the kidnapper gave near Martha's Vineyard.

Charles' badly decomposed body was eventually found May 12, 1932, about 4 miles from the Lindbergh home. A coroner said he believed the baby had been dead for about two months and his cause of death was a blow to the head.

The crime might never have been solved had the U.S. government not dropped the gold standard two years later. The Lindberghs paid the ransom money in gold certificates and when the culprit turned them in, it put investigators on the trail of Bruno Hauptmann, a German immigrant carpenter.

Charles A. Lindbergh is shown on the witness stand in the courtroom at Flemington, N.J., as he told his dramatic story of the night of March 1, 1932, when his young son was kidnapped. File Photo courtesy of Library of Congress

This breakthrough began what would later come to be known as the trial of the century.

In 1935, a jury convicted Hauptmann of murder in the death of Charles, and he was executed less than two months later.

A fictionalized theory about what was behind the baby's kidnapping figures heavily in the conclusion of The Plot Against America.


Image result for smedley butler quotes

Lindbergh and politics

The Lindberghs and their surviving children moved to and traveled throughout Europe, seeking to escape from the public eye.

In the mid- to late-1930s, he worked at the request of the U.S. military representative in Berlin -- Col. Truman Smith -- to gather intelligence. He conducted four visits to Germany before the start of World War II to provide data on the Luftwaffe's planes and Adolf Hitler's aircraft manufacturing facilities, according to Smith.

Lindbergh came under scrutiny in 1938 for accepting a medal from Nazi Field Marshal Hermann Goering, but Smith later wrote that had the aviator refused, he would have offended the leader.

Despite helping the U.S. military gain intelligence on the Nazis, Lindbergh staunchly opposed the United States joining the fight. He was a spokesman for the America First Committee, a non-interventionist group that espoused building up the U.S. military to protect it from an outside attack.

Lindbergh discussed his thoughts about race and anti-Jewish efforts by Nazi Germany in his speeches and writings during this time. He wrote in 1939 in Readers Digest about building up the United States' defenses to protect against the "infiltration of inferior blood." In reaction to the 1938 Kristallnacht, in which Nazis killed some 100 Jewish people in a single night, he agreed Germany had a "Jewish problem," but described the massacre as unreasonable in his diary.

In The Plot Against America, Roth imagines a United States in which the majority of Americans agree with Lindbergh's views on non-interventionism and race and vote him into office. Gradually, anti-Semitic speech and attacks become commonplace in this alternative America.

The story is told from the perspective of a working-class Jewish family -- the Roths -- living in Newark, N.J. They witness Lindbergh's political success and the rise of populism and xenophobia in a country they once thought they understood and belonged in.

The adaptation is created by David Simon and Ed Burns, best known for their work on the HBO series The Wire.
  


'Plot Against America': HBO adapts Philip Roth novel in first trailer

Jan. 31 (UPI) -- HBO is giving a glimpse of its new series The Plot Against America.

The network shared a first trailer for the miniseries Thursday, featuring Winona Ryder, Zoe Kazan, Morgan Spector, John Turturro, Anthony Boyle, Azhy Robertson and Caleb Malis.

The series is based on the Philip Roth novel of the same name, which imagines an alternate American history where Charles Lindbergh defeats Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1940 presidential election.

The preview shows Jewish couple Herman (Spector) and Elizabeth (Kazan) face growing anti-Semitism as Lindbergh's power grows.

"There's a lot of hate out there. He knows how to tap into it," Herman says.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth's sister, Evelyn (Ryder), and her husband, Rabbi Lionel Bengelsdorf (Turturro), support Lindbergh, calling him a "hero" and "not an evil man."

The adaptation is created by David Simon and Ed Burns. The pair are best known for their work on the HBO series The Wire.

The Plot Against America premieres March 16.
HAIL THE TZAR
 Russian regions OK changes to allow Putin 2 more terms as president




March 13 (UPI) -- All 85 regional governments in Russia have approved a measure that will allow President Vladimir Putin to remain in office until 2036, parliamentary officials said Friday.

The regional bodies quickly approved a bill passed by this week by the Federation Assembly -- Russia's national parliament -- amending the country's "Basic Law," under which Putin's presidential clock will effectively be reset after his second term ends in 2024.

Prior to the changes, Russian presidents were allowed to serve only two six-year terms.



The amendments still need approval from Russia's Constitutional Court. If it's authorized, Putin would then devise wording for a ballot referendum to be put to voters on April 22 for final approval.

Two more terms would allow Putin to stay in office until 2036, when the 67-year-old Russian leader would be 83.

Supporters in the president's ruling United Russia Party said the changes are necessary to ensure stability, and insist they weren't designed to keep Putin in power.

Critics, however, say they don't buy it. Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny has denounced the changes.

"Putin has been in power for 20 years, and yet he is going to run for the first time," he tweeted earlier this week.




---30---
Poll: Majority of Americans think U.N. is doing a poor job
GLASS HALF FULL OR GLASS HALF EMPTY...


Attendees sit and listen to speakers and performances at the United Nations headquarters in New York City on March 6. Though a majority of Americans think the United Nations is doing a poor job, most think it should play a major or leading role in the world. Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo

March 13 (UPI) -- A slight majority of Americans -- 54 percent -- believe the United Nations is doing a poor job of solving problems, though approval of the agency has largely improved over the past decade, a Gallup poll released Friday indicates.

The survey found that despite the negative assessment, 64 percent of Americans believe the United Nations should play a "significant" role in the world.


Of the U.S. adults surveyed, 43 percent said the United Nations does a good job, down slightly from 2019. The overall trend, though, has been on the incline since 2008, when the favorability rating hit a six-decade low of 26 percent.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to think favorably of the United Nations, with 55 percent in approval. Thirty percent of Republicans approve of the agency.

Americans' opinions on the role the United Nations should play in the world has remained largely stagnant since 2008. Forty percent believe it should play a "major role," 33 percent believe it should play a "minor role" and 24 percent believe it should play a "leading role."

Democrats are more likely to believe the United Nations should play a leading or major role in the world (84 percent), compared to Republicans (45 percent).

Gallup surveyed 1,028 adults from Feb. 3-16 for the poll, which has a 4 percent margin of error at the 95 percent confidence level.


---30---

Endangered coho salmon preservation an upstream battle in California



Removing a fish barrier on a small stream this summer in Marin County, Calif. may help rebuild wild coho salmon populations. Photo courtesy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries


DENVER, March 13 (UPI) -- The endangered coho salmon of Tomales Bay, north of San Francisco, are getting assistance from a stream restoration effort that could help rescue them from near-extinction locally.

Through the project, fish ecologists hope they can restore habitat to rebuild decimated populations of the historic fish, which once was a staple of indigenous diets and later California commercial fishing.

Central California coast coho salmon formerly were plentiful on the West Coast, but the population has shrunk so low that the fish is listed as endangered in California, Oregon and Washington under the federal Endangered Species Act. It is now illegal to catch coho salmon in California. Cohos are not protected in Alaska.

The fishes' spawning grounds are becoming hard to find. Unlike Chinook salmon, which lay eggs in rushing rivers, coho prefer small streams.


RELATED Genetically engineered salmon OK'd for human consumption in U.S.

Where once the coho spawned in almost 600 natural small streams and rivers in California, that habitat has now mostly disappeared. Most small tributaries have been encroached by housing development or dammed for drinking-water reservoirs.

Still, the cohos are beloved in the region. In the Lagunitas Creek watershed, tourists come from San Francisco and beyond to watch the salmon run every winter along the stream beds. The fish swim 26 miles upstream from the ocean to spawn in December and January.

"They're big fish, 24 to 30 inches, in their red spawning colors," said Chuck Schultz, a member of the local Golden Gate Trout Unlimited chapter.

RELATED New fish farm near Miami aims to grow major portion of U.S. salmon supply

Leaping fish

During the yearly salmon run, the fish leap up a series of waterfalls called the Inkwells, "about 6 or 7 feet in the air," Schultz said. "Seeing a big fish like that in a small stream is really something."

Usually, about 400 to 500 leaping coho make the annual trip to the spawning grounds, but this year's numbers were dangerously small, with fewer than 90 fish making the trek -- among the lowest counts in 25 years, according to the Marin Municipal Water District.
RELATED Salmon parasite is world's first non-oxygen breathing animal

"We've seen the coho population bounce back after disappointing runs and we're hopeful that improving ocean conditions will mean higher returns in coming years," said Eric Ettlinger, aquatic ecologist for the water district.

This summer, earthmovers will remove the remnants of a man-made fish barrier, possibly making it significantly easier for cohos to return to their spawning grounds in west Marin County.

"Historically, there were thousands of these fish, and the numbers are now dismally low," said Todd Steiner, executive director of the Olema-based Salmon Protection and Watershed Network. More than 95 percent of their population has been lost, said Steiner, a wildlife biologist.

In June, the network and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife will create a new path for coho in the San Geronimo Creek, which runs through a shuttered golf course north of San Francisco.

A concrete and metal structure called Roy's Pools will be replaced by a $2 million project that will create a free-flowing channel for the salmon, as well as steelhead trout and other stream wildlife. Volunteers also will replace native plants, including redwood seedlings. A visitor bridge will allow fish viewing

Round-trip journey

The life of the wild coho is a round-trip journey between fresh and ocean waters.

The fish live for three years. As juveniles, they grow to about 3 inches long in freshwater streams, and then make the trek through the bay to the Pacific Ocean, where they grow to 2 feet long and with weights of 8 to 10 pounds

They make one trip back to their birthplace to spawn and die. Wild coho will not mingle or breed with fishery-raised coho salmon that are stocked in other local river habitats.

Still, the restoration project alone might not be enough to restore the coho population, the salmon group's Steiner said.

"We're taking down a tiny dam, not big at all, but it is one of the only streams left for coho to reach the headlands," Steiner said. "We may not be able to bring them back from brink of local extinction. The science of habitat restoration is new, and we learn every time we do a project. There are no guarantees in this line of work."


SEE https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/03/feds-reject-removal-of-4-us-northwest.html

India frees Kashmir politician Farooq Abdullah after 7 months



Farooq Abdullah (C) stands with his wife Molly (R) and daughter Safia at his home in Srinagar, India, on Friday. Photo by Farooq Khan/EPA-EFE

March 13 (UPI) -- Prominent Kashmir politician Farooq Abdullah was released from prison Friday after spending seven months in detention.

Abdullah and son Omar Abdullah were taken into custody last August when the Indian government imposed a communication shutdown in the formerly autonomous, India-controlled regions of Jammu and Kashmir. The crackdown cut all cellphone and Internet service and added extra security.

India used a strict public safety law to detain Abdullah, a former government minister in Kashmir, and could have held him for two years without trial.

Farooq was released Friday, but Omar was not.

"I am free today. Now, I will be able to go to Delhi and attend Parliament and speak for you all," Abdullah told reporters Friday from his home.

"This freedom will be complete when all leaders are released. I hope the government of India will take action to release everyone."

India has used the Public Safety Act in the past to arrest terrorists and separatists.

Read MoreIndia ends Internet blackout in Jammu and KashmirIndia PM Modi appeals for calm amid violence that's so far killed 22
(0) Leave a comment

upi.com/6990912

The End Of The Oil Era?

IAM Newswire Benzinga March 13, 2020


Russia and Saudi Arabia clashed over the oil price, both trying to keep or increase their share in the market. The coronavirus outbreak was at least the official beginning of the conflict. As millions of people are in quarantine, and traveling is reduced to a minimum, oil has faced a sharp decrease in demand. Tensions escalated when Russia decided not to extend the production cut of 1.8 million barrels a day, caused by the stated decrease in demand.

Saudi Arabia promptly reacted by announcing a production boost and offering price discounts. Both actions led to a sharp oil price decrease. Russia did not withdraw here but declared its oil industry can survive the price battle in order to keep the current market share.

What Is The Fight Really About?

The open price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia strongly hit the U.S. oil industry. WTI dropped to $31.13 per barrel, which is a decrease for $10.15 or 24.59%. International benchmark Brent crude had a similar fate. It settled at $34.36 per barrel, which is a decrease for $10.91 or 24.1%. Since there are not many options that the open price war could cause, analysts and experts are thinking that Russia is targeting the U.S. shale companies. And that is not all.

This might be an opportunity for Russia to fight back against the sanctions passed by the U.S. Among other segments, sanctions were aiming to stop Russia in completing its Nord Stream 2 pipeline. This pipeline is supposed to transport natural gas from Russia to Europe across the Baltic Sea. Many oil companies' stock was hit once the tensions escalated, like Exxon Mobile (NYSE: XOM), Chevron Corporation (NYSE: CVX), PetroChina Company, Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE: RDS-A), BP Oil (NYSE: BP), and others.

Exxon Mobil Corporation

Exxon Mobil had an Investor Day a week ago, where it announced some heavy spending in the following years. Its forecast is to spend $33 billion on capital spending this year, and an additional $35 billion in the following years. Having in mind the oil price collapse, it is a question of how this energy giant will be able to support such aggressive spending.

Chevron Corporation

Chevron Corporation, a $175 billion oil giant, which has one of the lowest dividends among the oil giant group, is the company with an impressive asset portfolio that can ensure good financial margins which can make substantial returns for its shareholders, a secure yield of more than 5.5%.

PetroChina

PetroChina issued the force majeure notice to at least one of its LNG suppliers and its suppliers of piped gas and suspended some liquefied natural gas (LNG) and natural gas imports. This was all characterized as a seasonal plunge in demand increased with the effect of the coronavirus outbreak.

Royal Dutch Shell

Royal Dutch Shell stock crashed around 18% on Monday. This was quite a hit for this well-known, blue-chip FTSE 100 company, all because of the oil price plunge caused by the Russian and Saudi Arabian open price war. On the other hand, this might be a nice buying opportunity.

BP Oil

As investors started ditching the energy stocks, after the oil continued to drop, BP has lost almost £20 billion of its value on Monday. BP Oil and Royal Dutch Shell pulled the FTSE 100 to one-day losses, which was not seen since the 2008 global financial crisis.

Conclusion

This open price could result in another 10% decline, or even lead to detrimental losses. This will be a big additional hit to the U.S. oil sector, as companies are already facing tough decisions like cutbacks, forced mergers, and even some bankruptcies. And let's not forget that we're talking about a non-renewable source so its future is anything but guaranteed.

This Publication is contributed by IAMNewswire.com

Press Releases - If you are looking for full Press release distribution contact: press@iamnewswire.com

Fracking Needs a Shakeout, Not a Bailout


Liam Denning Bloomberg March 12, 2020



(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Calls for the Trump administration to provide financial aid for frackers have drawn denunciations of socialism. If anything, with oil trading around just $31 a barrel, the critics don’t go far enough. Because directing state resources into producing yet more of a thing manifestly not in demand isn’t just socialism; it’s the Soviet-grade, tractor-quota good stuff.

There is nothing wrong per se with government stepping in as a last resort when crisis threatens a vital segment of the economy. But you need a clear understanding of what the crisis is, what’s vital and what the objectives are.

In the case of the U.S. exploration and production business, to say the current predicament is the fault of Saudi Arabia or a virus is to cite catalysts rather than the underlying pathology.

Consider Continental Resources Inc.: Founder and majority shareholder Harold Hamm told Bloomberg TV on Wednesday he had “reached out” to the Trump administration and wants it to take action to prevent cheap Russian and Saudi Arabian barrels flooding the U.S. to the detriment of the domestic industry. Yet Continental should look to itself. Its guidance — which envisages growing production in a market that was oversupplied even before coronavirus struck — implies free cash flow going to zero this year if oil averages about $48. As of now, 2020 swaps trade around $34. Only last summer, the company was buying back shares at an average price of about $34 apiece. They are now below $9.

The shale oil boom of the past decade (and natural gas before that) has come with a hefty dose of moral hazard built on various assumed market puts.

One was OPEC’s willingness to keep its own barrels offline to prop up prices. It’s worth remembering that in 2016, when Hamm was then-candidate Donald Trump’s energy adviser, he openly called on Russia and Saudi Arabia to boost oil prices by cutting supply. This striking call for cartel behavior at the expense of American consumers came almost two years after Continental had imprudently cashed out its hedges in the belief the oil crash would reverse quickly. Clearly, that lesson wasn’t learned by too many.

Another put was the capital markets’ willingness to fund drilling budgets come what may. This worked out in 2016, when investors’ Pavlovian expectation enabled E&P companies to sell a ton of new stock. By 2019, though, investors were wising up to the sector’s peculiar capital-management skills. Then coronavirus showed up.

Now the puts are gone and the model has hit a wall. Beyond the losses inflicted on investors, there will be layoffs, bankruptcies and rationalization. Absent a sudden change in circumstance, U.S. oil production will start falling later this year.

Oil and gas production clearly is a vital sector. But that doesn’t make every marginal barrel or molecule vital. Commodity prices, along with dismal equity multiples and credit spreads, were telling us that even before this week. Much of the industry engaged in a decade-long, WeWork-like expansion in global oil, aided by third-party money and rewarding many executives handsomely. In doing so, they flattened oil and gas prices and return on capital.

So it is almost comical to now hear Hamm decry Saudi Arabia’s sudden grab for market share as “illegal” when his own bit of the oil industry has been doing that for years — and helped by Saudi Arabia’s prior restraint, to boot. As an aside, how do you prove a producer with operating costs of less than $10 a barrel is dumping oil when the market price is still three times that?

I cannot count the number of times I’ve heard about the Darwinian imperative that infuses shale, spurring deeper wells, faster fracks and an energy revolution. Yet now the talk is of trade barriers or even direct Federal aid, a bailout that would turn the industry’s dead men walking into the walking dead.

There is a long tail of producers lacking scale and duplicating corporate costs that is ripe for consolidation. And there are companies out there with the strategy and resources to hunker down and ultimately lead it. Capex budgets and (for some) dividend commitments can take some of the strain, and some companies have been quick to adjust. If that means less production, well, that’s kind of the point. If it means angering shareholders, they’re not happy anyway (or just AWOL). This would result in a more resilient, self-sufficient industry.

Too often, entrenched management convinced their stock is undervalued and corporate balance sheets larded with debt have been obstacles to making deals. Government aid would stymie this again at an opportune moment, keeping marginal wells pumping oil and gas into a market that doesn’t need it. Along the lines of this recent column by my colleague Joe Nocera, if coronavirus aid is coming, then target workers and consumers. It makes little sense to pump more capital directly or indirectly into a broken business model that ultimately has the wherewithal to fix itself.

That doesn’t mean it won’t happen, of course. Oil and gas producers enjoy a range of existing subsidies already, from the Texas Railroad Commission’s casual tolerance of gas flaring to society’s broader unwillingness to comprehensively price carbon emissions.

There was nothing in Wednesday evening’s presidential address to help, though; new travel restrictions on Europe and the lack of reassurance in the broader financial markets actually inflict further pain on the E&P sector. Indeed, one of the best things the White House could do for all parts of the economy, including oil and gas, would be to signal a comprehensive understanding of the threat and a set of concrete measures to help prevent further panic.

Still, watching the end of the 11-year bull market in stocks, President Trump has even more reason to try to provide succor to friendly constituencies. Hamm, whose stake in Continental has dropped by $7.3 billion this year, cited risks to jobs in comments made to the Washington Post on Tuesday, notably mentioning Pennsylvania.

Above all, “energy dominance” is a prominent part of the broader MAGA trope — and one whose worship of sheer quantity is both inherently deflationary and aligns perfectly with the old shale model. Overt government efforts to keep wells pumping regardless of price signals would lay bare the fallacy of this, regardless of whether you’re a wildcatter or a president.

To contact the author of this story: Liam Denning at ldenning1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Gongloff at mgongloff1@bloomberg.net

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Liam Denning is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy, mining and commodities. He previously was editor of the Wall Street Journal's Heard on the Street column and wrote for the Financial Times' Lex column. He was also an investment banker.

Coronavirus and the economy: U.S. and the world brace for shock waves and recession

The global economy is slowing sharply and the worst isn't over


March 12, 2020 By Jeffry Bartash
How badly is the coronavirus epidemic damaging the global economy? How much is the resulting COVID-19 illness hurting U.S. businesses and consumers?

Here’s a continuing MarketWatch update on what economic experts are saying:

•Severe restrictions to slow the spread of the coronavirus are taking a big toll on the global economy and it is going to get worse before it gets better, economists say. Italy is already in lockdown, for example, and the U.S. has now banned flights from Europe.

Moody’s Analytics cuts its growth forecast for the world economy to 1.9% from 2.6%. IHS Markit slashed its estimate to 1.7% from 2.5%.

How bad is that? The global economy has been expanding an average of 3.5% annually in recent years. So that would represent a major economic hit.

Wall Street already seems to be anticipating the worst. The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +9.36% has shed 8,000 points in the past week and fell into a bear market.

•The U.S. could post its first decline in growth in six years. Credit Suisse, for example, chopped its second-quarter GDP forecast to -0.9% from 2.8%.

Economists are split on whether the first recession since 2007-09 is inevitable. Some say the economy was strong enough before the viral outbreak to withstand a recession if the crisis passes in the next few months. But if it drags on the likelihood of a downturn rises sharply.

•Three-quarters of U.S. businesses say their supply chains have been disrupted by the coronavirus, a new survey shows. And more expect to face problems soon.

Companies say it is taking twice as long to obtain supplies and it is also gotten harder to get materials shipped to the U.S., according to the Institute for Supply Management. Some firms have trimmed their sales forecasts and others may follow suit soon.

“The story the data tells is that companies are faced with a lengthy recovery to normal operations in the wake of the viral outbreak,” said Thomas W. Derry, the ISM’s chief executive.

• Companies all over the world have become alarmed by the rapid spread of the coronavirus and the damage it is caused. A weekly survey by Moody’s found that business confidence has fallen sharply to the lowest level since the 2008 financial crisis. Only 6% of businesses said conditions are improving.

“The virus has slammed business confidence,’ said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.
Why Donald Trump needs to let competent people take charge of the COVID-19 pandemic response

Opinion: Chris Edelson


Dr. Robert Redfield, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, tries to set the record straight after President Trump speaks. AFP via Getty Images


As we all grapple with what the novel coronavirus means for various aspects of our lives, ranging from canceled public events to closed schools and volatile financial markets SPX, +9.28% TMUBMUSD10Y, 0.981% , it’s worth asking a fundamental question. What would a normal president say and do in response to this crisis?

It’s painfully obvious that no normal person — let alone any typical president — would respond in the way President Donald Trump has.

At each stage, he has lied, he has created confusion, he has made reckless predictions, and he has, once and for all, demonstrated his manifest unfitness to serve.

We may not be able to fix the damage that Trump has already caused, but at least we can stop him from doing any more harm. Public figures ought to be calling on the president to resign from office, to get out of the way and let competent people step in.

In his public statements over the last few weeks, Trump has demonstrated that he is simply incapable of taking on the challenge before him. On Feb. 29, Trump confidently predicted that the number of infected people in the U.S. would “within a couple of days [be] going to be down to close to zero.”

Read: World Health Organization declares that the coronavirus is a pandemic

Ten days later, states reported 571 Americans had tested positive for the coronavirus. That’s what is known based on limited testing. Experts believe the number of infected people in the U.S. is actually higher, and likely to keep increasing in the near future.

It is clear even to casual observers that Trump is in over his head and is interested mainly in public messaging that he thinks will mitigate personal political damage to him in an election year.

One observer described Trump as “a walking, talking, tweeting disaster when it comes to the communications strategy required during a complex crisis like this one.” Last Friday, when Trump spoke to reporters at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, the president incorrectly declared that “anybody … that needs a test gets a test.” That is plainly untrue, as Vice President Mike Pence had conceded a day earlier.

During the Friday press briefing, Trump bragged to the press about his supposed scientific expertise, suggesting that he has “a natural ability” to understand the issues associated with coronavirus. One reporter who witnessed the briefing said that “the president’s statements to the press were terrifying.”

Some experts have suggested that we simply have to accept that we have a president who is incapable of handling the crisis and work around that reality. Crisis-management expert Juliette Kayyem concluded that “a crisis finds a nation as it is, not as its citizens wish it to be.”

On one level, this is a powerful observation. Public health experts charged with responding to the crisis have to confront reality as it stands right now, with a president who is who he is. They can’t wish their way around that.

On another level, however, it is a mistake to assume we are simply stuck with the president we have. If he can’t do the job, the consequences are deadly serious, as lives are quite literally at stake.

While scientists, doctors and other public health professionals deal with the day-to-day business of saving lives and mitigating damage, the rest of us — especially those with a platform that reaches the public — must say what is self-evident: Donald Trump cannot do his job. He must resign — immediately.

Readers who are generally receptive to this conclusion may not unreasonably ask: What’s the point? Trump will never voluntarily leave office. That is a fair observation, and I do not expect him to do so.

I still believe it is essential to call for his resignation because it is so plainly the right thing to do. In a functioning system, elected officials from both major political parties would call for the president’s resignation, and he would be forced to leave office or face impeachment and removal through the constitutional process.

Our system, tragically, has failed. But we must continue fighting against that failure by working to restore the normalcy that has been taken from us. That is what it means to have a constitutional democracy in these deeply troubled times. One step toward restoring normalcy — admittedly, a symbolic step — is insisting that ordinary standards still mean something, that Trump’s failure cannot be glossed over or be set to the side.

In calling for Trump’s resignation we are refusing to accept the assumption that Trump exists outside of normal rules, and that this is something we simply must accept. We know he isn’t up to the job. The question is whether we, as citizens in a constitutional democracy, are up to ours.

Chris Edelson is an assistant professor of government in American University’s School of Public Affairs. He has written two books on presidential power, and recently wrote a book chapter describing the problem of constitutional failure in the United States.
‘This is how Planet of the Apes starts’ — As coronavirus slams Thailand tourism, monkeys brawl in the streets

March 12, 2020 By Shawn Langlois

YouTube

So this why they say, “Don’t feed the monkeys.”

There were bound to be plenty of unpredictable consequences as a result of the coronavirus outbreak, but a gang war between rival packs of monkeys in the streets of Thailand?

According to the Bangkok Post, that’s exactly what happened in the province of Lopburi this week, as hundreds of monkeys brawled over scraps of food. Apparently, tourists who normally keep them well-fed are staying away due to the coronavirus outbreak.

Watch the clip:

Sasaluk Rattanachai, a local shopkeeper who was credited by the Daily Mail for capturing the footage, claimed that this is the first time she’s ever seen such a clash between the temple monkeys and the city monkeys, two different groups separated by a train track.

“I think the monkeys were very, very hungry. There’s normally a lot of tourists here to feed the monkeys but now there are not as many, because of the coronavirus,” she said. “They went crazy for a single piece of food. I’ve never seen them this aggressive.”

The clip made “Planet of the Apes” go viral on Twitter TWTR, +9.37%