Melania Trump withdrew from a scheduled return to the campaign trail on Tuesday, two weeks out from election day, due to a “lingering cough”.

Like her husband, Donald Trump, and her son, Barron, the first lady recently contracted the coronavirus and entered treatment and isolation. She said last week she had recovered and she had been due to travel with her husband to Erie, Pennsylvania, for an evening election rally.

But a spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham, said: “Mrs Trump continues to feel better every day following her recovery from Covid-19, but with a lingering cough, and out of an abundance of caution, she will not be traveling today.”

Trump and his administration have been widely accused of failing to show proper caution in staging public events during the coronavirus pandemic.

Trump rallies do not feature enforced mitigation measures, including mask-wearing and social distancing. The president, first lady and other senior figures fell ill after attending a White House introduction for supreme court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on 26 September, which has been labelled a “super-spreader” event.

In her statement announcing her recovery, Melania Trump said she “was very fortunate as my diagnosis came with minimal symptoms, though they hit me all at once and it seemed to be a rollercoaster of symptoms in the days after. I experienced body aches, a cough and headaches, and felt extremely tired most of the time.”

In contrast to her husband, who received treatment not available to the general public, she did not spend time in hospital and said she “chose to go a more natural route in terms of medicine, opting more for vitamins and healthy food”.

More than 8.2m cases of the coronavirus have been recorded in the US and nearly 220,000 people have died. Case numbers are rising nationwide, with record daily increases in a number of states that will be key to deciding the presidential election, which is just two weeks away.

On Tuesday a New York Times analysis of polling averages put Trump behind his challenger, Joe Biden, in every swing state in which he beat Hillary Clinton in 2016, Pennsylvania among them.

Majorities in multiple polls have said they trust the Democratic candidate more than the Republican incumbent when it comes to handling the pandemic.

Regardless, in an interview with Fox News on Tuesday morning Trump once again criticised Dr Anthony Fauci, the infectious diseases expert who has served six presidents but whom Trump called “a disaster” the day before.

“Look, he’s a nice guy,” Trump said. “He has got a really bad arm and not a good baseball thrower, but he’s a nice guy. The only thing I say is, he’s a little bit sometimes not a team player, but he is a Democrat.”

In fact records show Fauci is not registered as a Democrat or a Republican. He has repeatedly professed himself non-partisan.

Source Article from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/20/melania-trump-cancels-rally-appearance-pennsylvania

Pennsylvania can accept mail ballots received up to three days after Election Day, despite objections from state Republicans, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday evening. 

The high court split 4-4 on a motion from the top Republicans in the Pennsylvania Senate to halt a ruling from the state’s top court. Amid mail delivery delays, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had ruled in September that the late ballots would be accepted so long as they don’t have a postmark clearly showing they were mailed after Election Day.

Because of the coronavirus pandemic, Pennsylvania Democrats have repeatedly asked local courts for a ballot extension, and Republicans have consistently resisted any extension.  Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat, initially opposed litigation seeking an extension, but changed her mind after she received a letter from USPS in June that warned the state’s deadlines were out of sync with the Postal Service’s delivery times. 

All four conservative justices approved of the state GOP request, but Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the three liberal justices in opposition, resulting in a tied vote. This meant the lower court’s ruling stood. 

In Pennsylvania’s June primary, Governor Tom Wolf, a Democrat, issued an executive order allowing a half dozen counties to count ballots received up to a week after Election Day if they were postmarked by that day. A local court granted a similar extension to a seventh county. 

In all, Pennsylvania received 100,000 mail-in ballots after the state’s primary election, about 90% of which were counted due to the governor’s order, Boockvar testified in a separate state court case in late August. That’s over twice the 44,000 vote margin President Donald Trump won the state in 2016. 

Those late votes are likely to skew Democratic, considering that 64% of the state’s mail ballot requests have come from Democrats and only 25% have come from Republicans. The ruling also ensures that a chunk of the state’s votes will go uncounted on Election Night. 

In a similar case in Wisconsin, a federal appeals court has blocked a six-day extension granted by a lower federal judge, and this case, too, Democrats have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Source Article from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-extends-pensylvania-mail-in-ballot-deadline/

COLUMBIA — In a rare foray into a South Carolina political race, former President Barack Obama taped a new ad supporting Democratic U.S. Senate challenger Jaime Harrison in his bid to unseat Republican incumbent Lindsey Graham.

The 60-second spot airing in South Carolina features Obama speaking direct-to-camera about how the Palmetto State helped propel him to the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

“Now you have the power to make history again by sending Jaime Harrison to the U.S. Senate so he can bring some change to South Carolina,” Obama says.

“If you want a senator that will fight for criminal justice reform, lower college costs and to make health care affordable, you’ve got to vote for my friend Jaime Harrison,” he adds.

While Obama has endorsed a slew of Democratic candidates in races all over the country, he has been much more limited in using his time and political capital to actively campaign for any of them.

Harrison is one of at least four Democratic U.S. Senate candidates whom Obama has cut ads for over the past few days. The others are incumbent Gary Peters in Michigan, Raphael Warnock in Georgia and Sara Gideon in Maine — all locked in highly competitive races.

Harrison said he was honored to receive Obama’s support, while S.C. GOP chairman Drew McKissick said the ad shows that Harrison, a top official at the Democratic National Committee, “is connected with the national Democrat baggage, whether he wants to be or not.”

The Obama ad is the latest in an increasing number of high-profile politicians weighing in on the South Carolina race.

Graham has recently used video testimonials from two of South Carolina’s most popular Republican politicians: U.S. Sen. Tim Scott and former Gov. Nikki Haley. In Scott’s ad, he says Graham is “a good South Carolinian,” while Haley details Graham’s humble upbringing and calls him “a fighter.”

While President Donald Trump supports Graham, one of his closest congressional allies, he has not personally taped any similar ads for him like Obama did for Harrison.

After the Obama ad came out, Graham swiftly sent out a fundraising email about it, warning his supporters that it will help his opponent “raise millions.”

“President Obama’s endorsement makes it absolutely clear that the Left is determined to defeat me and flip the Senate to blue,” Graham wrote.



Source Article from https://www.postandcourier.com/columbia/politics/obama-tapes-new-ad-for-harrison-while-haley-scott-tout-graham-in-sc-senate-race/article_4ed06034-12de-11eb-be6c-f368dfcddf6d.html

The Commission on Presidential Debates announced Monday that it will mute microphones at the start of each segment of Thursday night’s debate to ensure both candidates can speak without interruption after President Donald Trump constantly spoke over former vice president Joe Biden the last time.

“We realize, after discussions with both campaigns, that neither campaign may be totally satisfied with the measures announced today,” the commission said in a statement. “One may think they go too far, and one may think they do not go far enough. We are comfortable that these actions strike the right balance and that they are in the interest of the American people, for whom these debates are held.”

As was intended in the Sept. 29 debate, each candidate will be given two minutes of uninterrupted speaking time at the beginning of 15-minute segments followed by a period of open discussion. Under the new measure, the candidates’ microphones will be turned off during their opponent’s two-minute slot for each of the six segments to enforce the no interruptions rule already agreed on by the campaigns.

For the remainder of each segment, both microphones will be open, the commission said.

The new rules come just days before the two candidates are set to meet for what would have been the third and final debate of the 2020 election on Thursday night at Belmont University in Nashville. The debate that was scheduled for Oct. 15 was canceled after Trump said he wouldn’t participate in a virtual debate, which had been suggested after he contracted the coronavirus.

Acknowledging the chaos of the first debate that featured multiple bouts of cross talk, personal attacks, and a barrage of interruptions, the commission had said “additional structure” was needed “to ensure a more orderly discussion of the issues.”

“In considering this issue, the Commission is mindful of the distinction between enforcing rules already agreed upon by the candidates and making changes to the rules,” the commission said. “The Commission has determined that it is appropriate to adopt measures intended to promote adherence to agreed upon rules and inappropriate to make changes to those rules.”

Trump’s campaign on Monday said the president was committed to participating in the event despite the rule change.

“President Trump is committed to debating Joe Biden regardless of last minute rule changes from the biased commission in their latest attempt to provide advantage to their favored candidate,” campaign manager Bill Stepien said in a statement.

Earlier on Monday, Trump’s campaign issued an unusual statement urging the commission to change the topics for the final debate to focus on foreign policy, while also accusing the nonprofit group of trying to “alter the focus of the final debate” in order to protect Biden.

“The Commission’s pro-Biden antics have turned the entire debate season into a fiasco and it is little wonder why the public has lost faith in its objectivity,” Stepien said.

Biden’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Source Article from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/skbaer/trump-biden-debate-muted-microphones

Source Article from https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2020/10/20/ny-quarantine-list-updated-on-october-19/5983397002/

President Donald Trump on Monday suggested that Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, previously claimed that Americans don’t need to wear masks amid the ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic.

The Claim

“Dr.Tony Fauci says we don’t allow him to do television, and yet I saw him last night on @60Minutes, and he seems to get more airtime than anybody else since the late, great, Bob Hope,” Trump wrote in a tweet on Monday. “All I ask of Tony is that he make better decisions. He said “no masks & let China in”. Also, Bad arm!”

As of 3 p.m. ET on Monday, Trump’s tweet had more than 10,000 retweets and more than 40,000 likes.

During the first presidential debate on September 29, Trump made a similar claim when he suggested health officials and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not always encourage the use of masks.

“Dr. Fauci said the opposite, he very strongly said masks aren’t good and then he changed his mind, he said masks are good,” Trump said.

The Facts

Fauci first spoke about the wearing of masks amid the COVID-19 pandemic during a March interview with 60 Minutes.

“Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks,” Fauci said during the interview. “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.”

He continued, “When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.”

While Fauci suggested that Americans didn’t need to wear masks to protect themselves from COVID-19, his comments came before the CDC updated its guidance on facial coverings, and on April 3, they recommended that masks be worn “in public settings when around people outside their household, especially when social distancing measures are difficult to maintain.”

In the months following Fauci’s March comments and the CDC’s updated mask guidance, Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has since changed his views on mask wearing.

During a July interview with the Washington Post, Fauci said, “Back then, the critical issue was to save the masks for the people who really needed them because it was felt that there was a shortage of masks.”

“What happened as the weeks and months came by, two things became clear: one, that there wasn’t a shortage of masks, we had plenty of masks and coverings that you could put on that’s plain cloth…so that took care of that problem,” Fauci said. “Secondly, we fully realized that there are a lot of people who are asymptomatic who are spreading infection. So it became clear that we absolutely should be wearing masks consistently.”

During a September interview with ABC News’ “Starts Here” podcast, Fauci made similar comments about masks, suggesting that public health officials didn’t recommend mask wearing because there was a shortage of personal protective equipment for health care professionals.

“So the feeling was that people who were wanting to have masks in the community, namely just people out in the street, might be hoarding masks and making the shortage of masks even greater. In that context, we said that we did not recommend masks,” Fauci said.

“At that point, which is now months and months ago, I have been on the airways, on the radio, on TV, begging people to wear masks. And I keep talking in the context of wear a mask, keep physical distance, avoid crowds, wash your hands and do things more outdoors versus indoors.”

The Ruling

Mostly True.

While Fauci did suggest that not all Americans needed masks early in the pandemic, he did change his stance shortly after and has continued to encourage the use of them.

Newsweek reached out to Fauci for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.

p:last-of-type::after, .node-type-slideshow .article-body > p:last-of-type::after {
content: none
}]]>

Source Article from https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-dr-fauci-say-no-masks-like-trump-claiming-1540383

WASHINGTON (NEXSTAR) – Hours after stocks fell amid pessimism over the outlook for a stimulus deal, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff tweeted that there may be room for optimism.

“The Speaker and Secretary Mnuchin spoke at 3:00 p.m. today for approximately 53 minutes,” Drew Hammill tweeted. “In this call, they continued to narrow their differences.”

Hammill added that the California Democrat has “tasked committee chairs to reconcile difference with their GOP counterparts on key areas,” but did not specify what those areas were.

“The Speaker continues to hope that, by the end of the day Tuesday, we will have clarity on whether we will be able to pass a bill before the election,” Hammill added. “The two principals will speak again tomorrow and staff work will continue around the clock.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, her Senate Republican rivals and President Donald Trump are not on the same page – Pelosi said Sunday that a deal would have to come within 48 hours — or Tuesday — for it to be enacted by Election Day.

Congress is quickly moving past the point at which it can deliver more coronavirus relief before the election, with differences between House Speaker Pelosi, her Senate Republican rivals and Trump proving durable despite the glaring needs of the country.

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows took to the airwaves Monday to deliver an optimistic appraisal to the markets and to promise larger direct payments for families than the $1,200 per adult and $500 per child that was delivered this spring — even as his GOP allies have dumped the idea overboard.

“We remain committed to negotiating and also committed to making sure that we get a deal as quickly as possible,” Meadows said on Fox News. “If Nancy Pelosi will be reasonable, she’ll find the president of the United States to be reasonable, and we’ll get something across the finish line.”

But time is running out and significant differences remain in the way of an informal Tuesday deadline set by Pelosi if the talks are going to lead to legislation being delivered to Trump before the election.

Trump’s GOP allies are reconvening the Senate this week for a revote on a virus proposal that about one-third the size of a measure being negotiated by Pelosi and Mnuchin. But the Senate GOP bill has failed once before, and Trump himself says it’s too puny. The debate promises to bring a hefty dose of posturing and political gamesmanship, but little more.

A procedural tally on a stand-alone renewal of bipartisan Paycheck Protection Program business subsidies is slated for Tuesday in a vote that could cause Democratic fracturing but isn’t likely to advance the legislation.

Even the architect of the larger Senate measure, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., isn’t claiming this week’s vote will advance the ball. Once the measure fails, he plans to turn the chamber’s full attention to cementing a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court by confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

In that context, this week’s action has the chief benefit of giving Republicans in tough reelection races one last opportunity to try to show voters they are prioritizing COVID relief — and to make the case to voters that Democrats are the ones standing in the way.

“It was important to indicate to the American people before the election — not after — that we were not in favor of a stalemate, that we were not in favor of doing nothing,” McConnell said in a Kentucky appearance last week.

McConnell is resurrecting a measure in the $650 billion range that would provide a second round of paycheck relief, add $300 per week in supplemental unemployment benefits, and help schools and universities reopen. It contains no funding for states and local governments sought by Democrats and ignores Trump’s demand for another, larger round of direct payments.

The last coronavirus relief package, the $1.8 trillion bipartisan CARES Act, passed in March by an overwhelming margin as the economy went into lockdown amid fear and uncertainty about the virus. Since then, Trump and many of his GOP allies have focused on loosening social and economic restrictions as the key to recovery instead of more taxpayer-funded help.

Trump has been anything but consistent. He now insists that lawmakers should “go big” with a bill of up to $2 trillion or more, a total reversal after abandoning the talks earlier this month. But Trump’s political problems aren’t swaying Senate Republicans.

“He’s talking about a much larger amount than I can sell to my members,” McConnell said.

The most recent bill from House Democrats weighs in at $2.4 trillion — or more than $2.6 trillion when excluding a $246 billion tax increase on businesses that’s unlikely to gain GOP acceptance. The package is a nonstarter with Senate Republicans and McConnell, who is making the case for a more targeted approach that’s well south of $1 trillion.

The moment is challenging for Pelosi as well. For months she has been promising a COVID relief package of more than $2 trillion stuffed with Obama-era stimulus ideas. Even though the Senate and White House are both in GOP hands — and will be at least into January — she has sharply rebuffed anyone who suggests that Democrats should take a smaller deal now rather than risk going home empty-handed until next year.

Taking a smaller bill now would likely require Pelosi to give up tax cuts for the working poor and accept a far smaller aid package for states and local governments. But it would also mean that relief would flow immediately to millions of workers whose supplemental unemployment benefits were cut off this summer.

When an aid bill finally passes may depend on the outcome of the election.

If Trump loses, Congress is likely to stagger through a nonproductive lame-duck session comparable to the abbreviated session after the decisive 2008 Obama-Biden victory or the 2016 session that punted most of its leftovers to the Trump administration. That scenario would push virus aid into 2021.

Delays in coronavirus aid come as the recovery from this spring’s economic shutdown is slowing and as the massive stimulus effects of the $1.8 trillion March relief measure wear off. COVID cases are spiking again heading into a third wave of the pandemic this winter. Poverty is climbing and the virus is continuing to take a disproportionate toll on minority communities.

“If Congress doesn’t act the next administration is going to inherit a real mess,” said Harvard economist Jason Furman, a former top Obama adviser. “Economic problems tend to feed on themselves.” He is in the Democratic camp that prefers imperfect stimulus now rather than a larger package in four months or so.

Instead, if history repeats, COVID relief is likely to be the first major item out of the gate next year, but it’s not clear even then that it’ll be as big as Democrats hope.

“Pelosi decided in July that the political benefit of the next package would accrue to the president’s benefit and therefore she was going to lay out the most aggressive terms possible,” said veteran GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, who predicts that Pelosi won’t get much more next year than she could have gotten now “unless they’re willing to break the filibuster for a $3 trillion bailout for blue states.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://myfox8.com/news/stimulus-update-pelosi-mnuchin-narrow-differences-ahead-of-house-speakers-tuesday-deadline/

Pennsylvania ballots will be counted up to three days after Election Day, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in shooting down Republican opposition to the extension.

The 4-4 ruling by the court upholds a previous decision by the State Supreme Court that will allow ballots in the Keystone State to be counted up to Nov. 6, the Associated Press reported. Ballots that don’t have clear postmarks will also be counted under the ruling.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined with three liberal members of the court in blocking the GOP’s challenge to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s previous ruling. Opinions by the justices were not included in the ruling.

Republicans, including President Trump, backed the challenge to Pennsylvania court’s ruling, arguing it violates election law that states Election Day is the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November.

Democrats in the state had sought the extension because members of their party are requesting mail-in ballots by nearly a 3-to-1 ratio over GOP voters, according to the AP.

With the extension, ballots postmarked by the time polls close on Nov. 3 can be counted by 5 p.m. on Nov. 6.

With Post Wires

Source Article from https://nypost.com/2020/10/19/supreme-court-allows-3-day-extension-for-pennsylvania-mail-in-ballots/

MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes appeared to share a laugh at the expense of CNN star Jeffrey Toobin.

Vice broke the news that The New Yorker magazine suspended Toobin –who also works at CNN — over an alleged incident that involved nudity during a Zoom call with collegues at the magazine and members of WNYC radio. Vice later reported that two sources said Toobin was seen masturbating on the call. 

Maddow began her prime-time handoff by thanking Hayes who had a grin on his face. Mediaite described the “elephant in the room” they chose not to address on-air. 

CNN’S JEFFREY TOOBIN REPORTEDLY MASTURBATING ON ZOOM CALL THAT LED TO NEW YORKER SUSPENSION

“Good evening, Chris. Thank you, my friend. And thank you for your counsel over the course of today as a workday as to what counted as news that should be on TV,” Maddow said, causing Hayes to break down before she began chuckling herself. “It was such a weird day today.”

“I’m always happy to have those very high-level editorial discussions with you about the most important stories in our world,” Hayes responded with a smirk. 

“Let us never speak of this publicly again,” Maddow said before telling her viewers, “It pays to have colleagues who share a sense of both the absurdity of life and the responsibility of what actually should be on television. And it really pays to be able to talk to those colleagues during the course of the day like today!”

Vice reported that the Zoom call, which was described as an “election simulation,” featured Toobin’s New Yorker colleagues including Jane Mayer, Masha Gessen, Andrew Marantz, Jelani Cobb, Evan Osnos, Sue Halpern and Dexter Filkins playing various roles in potential 2020 outcomes including President Trump, Joe Biden, “establishment Republicans,” ‘establishment Democrats,” and “the military.” Toobin was playing “the courts.”

CNN ANALYST JEFFREY TOOBIN SUSPENDED BY NEW YORKER OVER ALLEGED NUDITY ON ZOOM CALL

According to two sources, Toobin was seen masturbating in what was supposed to be a 10-minute “strategy session” along party lines, but that it “seemed like Toobin was on a second video call.”

“The sources said that when the groups returned from their breakout rooms, Toobin lowered the camera. The people on the call said they could see Toobin touching his penis. Toobin then left the call. Moments later, he called back in, seemingly unaware of what his colleagues had been able to see, and the simulation continued,” Vice reported. 

Vice added an update to its original report, “This piece has been updated with more detail about the call and the headline has been updated to reflect that Toobin was masturbating.”

Prior to the reported masturbation, Toobin, one of CNN’s biggest stars, offered an apology for his “embarrassingly stupid mistake” and attempted to explain what led to the incident.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“I made an embarrassingly stupid mistake, believing I was off-camera. I apologize to my wife, family, friends and co-workers,” Toobin said in a statement to Motherboard. “I believed I was not visible on Zoom. I thought no one on the Zoom call could see me. I thought I had muted the Zoom video.”

A spokesperson confirmed to Fox News, “Jeffrey Toobin has been suspended while we investigate the matter.” 

CNN also said in a statement, “Jeff Toobin has asked for some time off while he deals with a personal issue, which we have granted.”

CNN nor WNYC did not previously respond to Fox News’ requests for comment. 

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-rachel-maddow-chris-hayes-cnn-jeffrey-toobin-masturbation

Most Americans receive little or no information about flood risk before they buy a house, leading millions to put their safety, belongings and financial security in harm’s way.

Ryan Kellman/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Ryan Kellman/NPR

Five years ago, the Obbink family decided to buy a house in Virginia Beach, Va.

Kerrie Obbink led the charge because her husband, Steve, was an active-duty member of the Navy. That was why they had moved from Connecticut to Virginia in the first place. Kerrie started looking for houses that were in their price range, and where she could imagine raising their children.

It didn’t take long to find a place that seemed right. “He liked the standalone garage,” she remembers, “and there was a park across the street with playing fields, which was nice.”

The Obbinks pooled their savings and made an offer on the house. That started the wheels of the homebuying process turning: They put down a deposit, scheduled inspections, got approved for a mortgage and moved into their one-story house in fall 2015.

Kerrie Obbink’s home in Virginia Beach, Va., flooded after she and her family moved in. Today, she’s a real estate agent who says she refuses to help clients purchase houses in a flood plain.

Ryan Kellman/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Ryan Kellman/NPR

One year later, their house flooded.

The house had also flooded less than a decade earlier, and it was in a flood plain. The federal government knew both of those things — the Federal Emergency Management Agency keeps track of flood insurance claims and publishes flood maps that states and cities use to make planning decisions. But no one told the Obbinks they were moving into harm’s way, because no one was obligated to: not their real estate agent, not the seller, not the inspector. Or any government agency, or the real estate website that listed the property.

A growing body of research suggests that the lack of transparency and growing flood risk due to climate change are leading millions of Americans to put their safety and their financial futures in jeopardy.

About 15 million properties have significant risk of flooding, according to recent estimates that take into account climate-driven weather. Yet studies in multiple states have found that most people living in harm’s way did not understand their home’s flood risk until after they purchased it.

When the Obbinks’ house flooded, they didn’t even have time to evacuate. Kerrie Obbink and her husband spent the night of the flood with two small children and five pets packed in one sagging, waterlogged bed, worried they might drown if they fell asleep. The flood damage wiped out the family’s remaining savings. They had nowhere to go while they were repairing the house, so they lived in their garage for four months.

“All of our things, piled outside on the curb for the city to pick up,” Obbink remembers, “that was the real moment for me. I don’t ever want to go through anything like that again.”

A patchwork of ineffective laws

The situation is particularly dire for poor and middle-class Americans who invest everything they have in their home, as the Obbinks did. Research by environmental economist Lala Ma at the University of Kentucky suggests that people with less wealth are more likely to concentrate in areas with more flood risk, perhaps because properties are more affordable or because of racist housing policies that restrict housing options. And they suffer disproportionately when a flood happens.

Poor families are hit the hardest, Ma says. “The long-term costs of vulnerable groups being exposed to flood risks are really high,” she says, because a house is usually a family’s biggest asset, and there are no savings to fall back on. “It snowballs into their well-being in the future.”

Climate change means more flooding in much of the U.S. as sea levels rise and extreme rain becomes more common. Many people who live in flood-prone areas do not know they are at risk.

Ryan Kellman/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Ryan Kellman/NPR

Climate change means more flooding in much of the U.S. as sea levels rise and extreme rain becomes more common. Many people who live in flood-prone areas do not know they are at risk.

Ryan Kellman/NPR

The number of families in harm’s way is growing as sea levels rise and extreme rain becomes more common. One analysis found that more than 80% of presidential disaster declarations between 1980 and 2017 were for events that included flooding.

Yet 21 states do not require any information about flood risk to be disclosed to homebuyers, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. Some of those states are among the most vulnerable to rising seas and climate-driven extreme rain, including Florida, Virginia and Massachusetts.

Even residents of states that do require flood risk disclosure often don’t know that they live in harm’s way until it’s too late, because the information they receive from sellers, real estate agents and government agencies is confusing, incomplete or comes too late.

In 27 of the 29 states with flood disclosure laws, potential buyers receive information about whether a house is prone to flooding only after they make an offer on the house, NPR found when it reviewed state statutes.

“At that point, you’re really committed to a property,” says Carolyn Kousky, executive director of the Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center at the University of Pennsylvania. “It’s hard for the [flood] risk to be a factor in the decision-making at that point, because it becomes something that’s like, ‘Hey, is this enough to kill the deal and walk away?’ “

She says information about a property’s flood risk must be conveyed much earlier when people are still weighing their options.

Kousky also argues that flood risk information should be clearer. In the majority of states with flood disclosure requirements, homebuyers get a form with a simple check box saying whether the property is in an official flood plain — one of hundreds of pages of documents that the buyer must make sense of after they’ve made an offer.

Loren Barilleau and her husband thought they were purchasing a house that would be safe from floods. In fact, federal flood maps obscured the risk, she says.

Ryan Kellman/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Ryan Kellman/NPR

“We didn’t buy in a flood zone”

In some cases, the information that homebuyers receive is not an accurate depiction of the flood risk their new home faces. Official flood maps have hard lines between areas with high flood risk and areas with little or no flood risk, which can give the false impression that a home that is next to a flood plain is not at risk for flooding.

In fact, nearly one-third of flood damage happens outside official flood plains, according to FEMA. “So it doesn’t mean you’re safe if you’re not in it,” the Wharton Risk Center’s Kousky says. “Right now, we don’t do a good job explaining that to people.”

When Lane Barilleau came back from his tour of duty in Afghanistan in 2010, he and his wife, Loren, were looking for a quiet neighborhood and a house with a yard for the children they planned to have. The area northeast of Baton Rouge, La., where they’d gone to high school together, seemed perfect.

The couple both understand that the climate is changing, and that means more flooding in southern Louisiana. They were looking for a house that would stay dry, and they thought they’d found one.

Louisiana has the strongest flood disclosure law in the country: People selling the house are required to say whether the house is in an official flood zone, whether they have flood insurance and whether they have experienced flooding at the house.

Lachlan (left) and Lillian Barilleau play in the backyard of their home in Central, La. They were displaced from the house for months after a flood in 2016.

Ryan Kellman/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Ryan Kellman/NPR

Lachlan (left) and Lillian Barilleau play in the backyard of their home in Central, La. They were displaced from the house for months after a flood in 2016.

Ryan Kellman/NPR

The Barilleaus thought they understood their home’s flood risk before making an offer. They saw on federal flood maps that “this house was like an island, surrounded by flooding areas,” Loren Barilleau says. “We didn’t buy in a flood zone because we don’t want to be flooded.”

But their home was still at significant risk for flooding, even though it wasn’t technically in a flood zone. In 2016, a rainstorm sent nearly 2 feet of water into their house. The flood was even more financially devastating because they didn’t have flood insurance. They thought they didn’t need it because they were on an island of high ground. They had to borrow money to repair the damage.

And there were deeper effects. Loren Barilleau blames a miscarriage she experienced during that time partly on the stress from the flood. They had to move in with family while they were repairing the house, which meant a lot of upheaval for their two small children. “We had no schedule,” she remembers. “They didn’t take naps anymore. People were like, ‘Does your 2-year-old nap?’ No, he doesn’t nap. He just falls asleep in my arms.”

Lachlan Barilleau, 5, enjoys catching insects in his backyard in Central, near Baton Rouge, La.

Ryan Kellman/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Ryan Kellman/NPR

Four years later, Barilleau has mixed feelings about their house. “I resent this house as much as I have an attachment to it,” she says.

She wishes that the information they received about flooding had gone beyond the hard lines on the map and actually conveyed the risk. “It would have been helpful to know what the chances were,” she says.

The fight for more information

Ballooning, climate-driven flood damage in the U.S. in recent years has led some states to consider new flood risk disclosure requirements for real estate transactions.

After hotter-than-average water in the Gulf of Mexico caused Hurricane Harvey to dump a record-breaking amount of rain in the Houston area in 2017, Texas passed a law that requires sellers to tell buyers whether a home is in a flood zone and whether they have flood insurance.

But similar attempts elsewhere have stalled. One reason is that widespread flood risk has led elected officials of both parties to reject changes that could drive down their constituents’ property values. Congress considered a nationwide disclosure requirement as part of an overhaul to the National Flood Insurance Program, but the plan went nowhere. A bill that would close a loophole in New York’s disclosure requirements has been pending in its state Legislature for months.

In Virginia, bills proposing new requirements have failed twice in the last two years. The most recent bill failed in January after the Virginia Realtors association strongly opposed it. Terrie Suit, the CEO of the association, says the group didn’t like that the legislation would have required sellers to disclose information about flood risk.

“It leads the buyer to rely on information from a nonprofessional, someone who has no expertise in flood hazard zones, no expertise in flood insurance requirements,” Suit says. “It’s very concerning to us.”

Meanwhile, the National Association of Realtors is advocating for a nationwide flood disclosure system that would not rely on real estate agents. Instead, the group has called for an independent service for homebuyers that would be similar to Carfax, the private entity that provides detailed information, including crash and flood history, to potential buyers of used cars.

While the idea has drawn some support from independent flood experts, it is unclear who would administer such a service or who would pay for it.

Rising climate-driven flood damage in recent years has led some states and Congress to consider new flood risk disclosure requirements for real estate transactions.

Ryan Kellman/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Ryan Kellman/NPR

Many homeowners, elected officials and real estate agents worry that disclosing flood risk could undermine property values or lead to prohibitively high flood insurance premiums. Loren Barilleau, whose home flooded in 2016, says she would only support stronger disclosure laws if they came with protections for sellers.

“It’s a tough thing,” she says. “On one hand, I want to know if I’m buying a house that will flood. But on the other hand, it’s not fair if we lose money when we sell this house just because the rules changed.”

Research suggests that disclosing flood risk can cause property values to dip slightly — about 4% in most studies, although the effects vary in different parts of the country. Miyuki Hino, an assistant professor of city and regional planning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, studies price impacts of hazard disclosure and says she understands why elected officials might be nervous about requiring flood risk disclosure.

“There’s a side of you that doesn’t want to take the risk of devaluing any properties,” Hino says, “and therefore [thinks], ‘Let’s just leave everything the way it is.'”

But she warns that disclosing flood risk is likely better for both buyers and sellers than hiding it or hoping it will go away. Keeping flood risk secret allows more and more people to move into harm’s way without understanding the financial implications, and it contributes to what Hino describes as a potential flood risk housing bubble.

“What you’re doing is actually allowing the bubble to continue growing and eventually it’s going to pop,” she says. “So, are you better off trying to deflate it slowly or waiting for an explosion to happen?”

Baton Rouge is increasingly prone to flooding. Local officials in many places worry that disclosing flood risk could undermine home prices, but researchers warn that the lack of disclosure could lead to a price bubble.

Ryan Kellman/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Ryan Kellman/NPR

Baton Rouge is increasingly prone to flooding. Local officials in many places worry that disclosing flood risk could undermine home prices, but researchers warn that the lack of disclosure could lead to a price bubble.

Ryan Kellman/NPR

When disclosure laws are not enough

Transparency about flood risk is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to helping people protect themselves from the hazards of a warming planet. People are not rational machines who decide where to live based purely on maps and data and, for some, the community where they feel most at home also happens to be prone to flooding.

Tramelle and Tracey Neldare understand the flood risk at their home in east Baton Rouge. The house has been in Tracey’s family since the 1950s when her grandparents decided to move to one of the few neighborhoods in the city where a Black professional could purchase a home and have what Tramelle calls “a comfortable life.”

Tracey Neldare lives in a house that has been passed down in her family for multiple generations.

Ryan Kellman/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Ryan Kellman/NPR

“I think my mom was about 6 months old when they moved into this house, and she’ll be 70 in November,” says Tracey Neldare, sitting in the side yard of the home she now shares with her husband. “We were raised in this home. My brother and I would spend summers here.”

After Tracey’s grandmother died, it passed down to Tracey’s mother and her siblings. The Neldares decided to buy it from the rest of the family and renovate it so they could live there.

A 2016 rainstorm flooded the family home in Baton Rouge that Tracey and Tramelle Neldare had just finished renovating.

Tramelle Neldare


hide caption

toggle caption

Tramelle Neldare

A 2016 rainstorm flooded the family home in Baton Rouge that Tracey and Tramelle Neldare had just finished renovating.

Tramelle Neldare

They finished the renovation in early 2016, and the house flooded about six months later.

Water damaged a lot of belongings that had been passed down over the years, which was hard for Tracey. Repairing the house took a year of work, which Tramelle mostly did himself to save money. But they never considered moving, and they still aren’t considering it, even though they know another flood could happen.

Tramelle Neldare has poured time and money into repairing flood damage to the home he shares with his wife. The house has been passed down through three generations.

Ryan Kellman/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Ryan Kellman/NPR

Tramelle Neldare has poured time and money into repairing flood damage to the home he shares with his wife. The house has been passed down through three generations.

Ryan Kellman/NPR

“It’s still in the back of your mind when a hard rain comes,” Tracey says. “You get a little nervous. You really do.”

But she says the house comes with something irreplaceable: neighbors she has known her entire life. A lot of the original families still live on the street. When Tracey was diagnosed with cancer during the pandemic, her neighbors came to check on her. “It’s like family,” she says. “Where else are you going to find that?”

Tramelle Neldare has a deep attachment to the family home he shares with his wife, Tracey. Although they know it could flood again, they say they would never consider moving.

Ryan Kellman/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Ryan Kellman/NPR

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2020/10/20/921132721/living-in-harms-way-why-most-flood-risk-is-not-disclosed

When Donald Trump and Joe Biden face off on Thursday for a final televised debate, each candidate will have their microphones cut off while the other is delivering responses to questions.

The 90-minute debate is divided into six 15-minute segments, with each candidate granted two minutes to deliver uninterrupted remarks before proceeding to an open debate.

The non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) on Monday announced that “in order to enforce this agreed upon rule, the only candidate whose microphone will be open during these two-minute periods is the candidate who has the floor under the rules”. Both mics will be unmuted for open discussion.

The commission added in a statement: “We realize, after discussions with both campaigns, that neither campaign may be totally satisfied with the measures announced today. One may think they go too far, and one may think they do not go far enough. We are comfortable that these actions strike the right balance and that they are in the interest of the American people, for whom these debates are held.”

The Trump campaign voiced objections to the change but said the Republican would still take part in the Thursday night event, one of his last chances to reach a large prime-time audience before voting ends on 3 November.

“President Trump is committed to debating Joe Biden regardless of last-minute rule changes from the biased commission in their latest attempt to provide advantage to their favored candidate,” campaign manager Bill Stepien said.

The Biden campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Talking to reporters, Trump said the conditions of the debate were unfair: “I will participate but it’s very unfair that they changed the topics and it’s very unfair that again we have an anchor who’s totally biased.”

The rule change comes after a chaotic first debate on 30 September during which the presidential candidates constantly spoke over each other, with Trump relentlessly interrupting and attacking his Democratic rival.

Trump interjected so frequently that Biden at one point lost his patience and snapped: “Will you shut up, man? This is so unpresidential.”


‘Will you shut up, man?’: Biden and Trump clash in first US presidential debate – video

Republicans and Trump have been critical of the CPD for canceling the second debate due to safety concerns after Trump was diagnosed with Covid-19.

And earlier on Monday, the Trump campaign contested the topics of some of the questions the debate moderator, NBC News correspondent Kristen Welker, had chosen for the debate. At a recent rally, Trump griped that Welker is “extremely unfair”. He has also tweeted, “She’s always been terrible & unfair, just like most of the Fake News reporters, but I’ll still play the game.”

Source Article from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/19/presidential-debate-commission-adopts-rules-to-mute-microphones

“They’re getting tired of the pandemic — aren’t they?” Trump said at a rally in Arizona. “You turn on CNN. That’s all they cover. Covid, covid, pandemic. Covid, covid, covid. . . . They’re trying to talk people out of voting. People aren’t buying it, CNN, you dumb bastards.”

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/19/coronavirus-covid-live-updates-us/

The Supreme Court handed down a brief, unsigned order on Monday, which effectively rejected radical arguments by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania that sought to make it harder to vote in that state. This order, in other words, is a victory for voting rights — but that victory may only last a matter of days.

Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar involves a state Supreme Court order holding that many ballots received up to three days after Election Day must be counted. Monday’s order means that this state Supreme Court decision will stand, for now.

The Court’s decision not to grant relief to the GOP in Republican Party is not especially surprising. What is surprising is the vote breakdown in this case. The Court voted 4-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts crossing over to vote with the three liberal justices.

So in the almost certain event that Trump Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to join the Supreme Court, there could be five votes on the Supreme Court who support the GOP’s effort to toss out many ballots in the state of Pennsylvania. Indeed, it is possible that Republicans will attempt to raise the same issue before the justices after Barrett is confirmed.

The dissenting justices did not explain why they dissented

The Supreme Court’s order in Republican Party is only two sentences long. The first sentence states that the GOP’s request to stay the state Supreme Court decision is denied. The second merely states that “Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application.” None of the four justices in dissent explained why they dissented.

In its brief asking the Supreme Court to block the state court’s decision, however, the GOP advanced two legally dubious theories.

The first is that a federal law providing that the election shall take place “on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.” Republicans argue that federal law requires “the 2020 general election to be consummated on Election Day (November 3, 2020).” So any ballots that may have been mailed after this date must be tossed.

One serious problem with this argument, however, is that the provisions of federal law setting an election date should not be enforceable in federal court. As I’ve previously explained, private parties are only allowed to bring a lawsuit seeking to enforce a federal statute if that statute contains particular language. And the federal law setting the date of the election does not contain such language.

The GOP’s other argument is potentially breathtaking in its implications. The Constitution provides that “each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” members of the Electoral College. In their brief, the GOP hones in on the word “Legislature,” arguing that only the Pennsylvania state legislature may set the state’s rules for choosing presidential electors — not the state Supreme Court.

But there’s a glaring problem with this argument. As the Supreme Court held in Marbury v. Madison (1803), “it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” In Republican Party, two parties had a disagreement about what Pennsylvania law says about how ballots should be counted. Ultimately, the state supreme court resolved that disagreement in a manner that the GOP disagrees with.

The GOP argues in its brief that the state Supreme Court’s decision relied on reasoning that is “tortured at best.” But so what? There was a disagreement between two parties. Someone had to resolve that dispute. And, in questions of state law, the state Supreme Court is supposed to be the final word on such disputes.

One of the most basic principles of American law is that the Supreme Court of the United States has the final word on questions of federal law, but state supreme courts have the final word on how to interpret the law of their own state.

Indeed, if state supreme courts cannot interpret their state’s own election law, it’s unclear how that law is supposed to function. There will inevitably be legal disagreements between candidates, parties, and election officials during an election. Perhaps the Democratic Party believes that a particular ballot should be counted, and the Republican Party disagrees.

But someone has to have the power to resolve such disagreements, and, in this country, disputes about the proper meaning of an existing law are resolved by the judiciary. If the judiciary cannot perform this function, we have no way of knowing what the law is — and we may have no way of knowing who won a disputed election.

In any event, because the four dissenting justices did not explain their reasoning, we do not know whether they voted with the GOP because they were moved by one or both of the GOP’s arguments — or maybe because they came up with their own reason to back their own political party in this case.

What we do know is that four plus one equals five. Thus, in the likely event that Judge Barrett becomes Justice Barrett, there will probably be a majority on the Supreme Court to hand a victory to the GOP in cases like this one.

Indeed, the GOP may be able to raise this issue again after Barrett is confirmed, potentially securing a Court order requiring states like Pennsylvania to toss out an unknown number of ballots that arrive after Election Day. If the election is close, that could be enough to change the result.


Will you help keep Vox free for all?

The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes. It’s essential that all Americans are able to access clear, concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives, and the lives of their families and communities. That is our mission at Vox. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you haven’t, please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election: Contribute today from as little as $3.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/2020/10/19/21524177/supreme-court-voting-rights-pennsylvania-republican-boockvar-amy-coney-barrett

“If we are right,” they added, “this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.”

Nick Shapiro, a former top aide under CIA director John Brennan, provided POLITICO with the letter on Monday. He noted that “the IC leaders who have signed this letter worked for the past four presidents, including Trump. The real power here however is the number of former, working-level IC officers who want the American people to know that once again the Russians are interfering.”

The former Trump administration officials who signed the letter include Russ Travers, who served as National Counterterrorism Center acting director; Glenn Gerstell, the former NSA general counsel; Rick Ledgett, the former deputy NSA director; Marc Polymeropoulos, a retired CIA senior operations officer; and Cynthia Strand, who served as the CIA’s deputy assistant director for global issues. Former CIA directors or acting directors Brennan, Leon Panetta, Gen. Michael Hayden, John McLaughlin and Michael Morell also signed the letter, along with more than three dozen other intelligence veterans. Several of the former officials on the list have endorsed Biden.

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said on Monday that the information on Biden’s laptop “is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign,” though the FBI is reportedly conducting an ongoing investigation into whether Russia was involved.

The New York Times raised questions on Sunday about the rigor of the Post’s reporting process, revealing that several of its reporters had refused to put their name on the Biden stories because they were concerned about the authenticity of the materials. The Post stood by its reporting, saying it was vetted before publication.

But the release of the material, which POLITICO has not independently verified, has drawn comparisons to 2016, when Russian hackers dumped troves of emails from Democrats onto the internet — producing few damaging revelations but fueling accusations of corruption by Trump. While there has been no immediate indication of Russian involvement in the release of emails the Post obtained, its general thrust mirrors a narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies have described as part of an active Russian disinformation effort aimed at denigrating Biden’s candidacy.

“We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,” the letter reads. But, it continues, “there are a number of factors that make us suspicious of Russian involvement.”

“Such an operation would be consistent with Russian objectives, as outlined publicly and recently by the Intelligence Community, to create political chaos in the United States and to deepen political divisions here but also to undermine the candidacy of former Vice President Biden and thereby help the candidacy of President Trump,” the letter reads.

National Counterintelligence and Security Center Director Bill Evanina said in August that Russia has been trying to denigrate Biden’s campaign, specifically through a Ukrainian lawmaker named Andriy Derkach who has met with Giuliani at least twice to discuss corruption accusations against Biden. Derkach was sanctioned by the Treasury Department last month for allegedly acting as a Russian agent and interfering in the 2020 election.

Giuliani brushed off concerns about Derkach in an interview with The Daily Beast this week, saying “the chance that Derkach is a Russian spy is no better than 50/50.” And he told The Wall Street Journal of the purported Biden email trove: “Could it be hacked? I don’t know. I don’t think so. If it was hacked, it’s for real. If it was hacked. I didn’t hack it. I have every right to use it.”

The former officials said Derkach’s relationship with Giuliani and fixation on the Bidens, along with Russia’s reported hack on Burisma — the Ukrainian energy company that gave Hunter Biden a board seat and is at the center of Trump and his allies’ corruption allegations — “is consistent with” a Russian operation.

“For the Russians at this point, with Trump down in the polls, there is incentive for Moscow to pull out the stops to do anything possible to help Trump win and/or to weaken Biden should he win,” the letter says. “A ‘laptop op’ fits the bill, as the publication of the emails are clearly designed to discredit Biden.”

Top Biden advisers who staffed him during his vice presidency, citing their own recollections as well as a review of Biden’s official schedules, have sharply rejected suggestions that Biden ever met with a representative of Burisma in 2015 or has otherwise been involved in Hunter Biden’s business interests.

“Investigations by the press, during impeachment, and even by two Republican-led Senate committees whose work was decried as ‘not legitimate’ and political by a GOP colleague have all reached the same conclusion: that Joe Biden carried out official U.S. policy toward Ukraine and engaged in no wrongdoing,” Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates said last week. “Trump administration officials have attested to these facts under oath.”

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276

Near the end of September, with coronavirus cases falling and more schools and businesses reopening, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration urged restraint, citing a statistical model that predicted a startling 89% increase in virus hospitalizations in the next month.

That hasn’t happened. Instead, state data shows hospitalizations have fallen by about 15% since that warning while the weekly average number of new cases continues to decline even as other more populous states like Florida, Ohio and Illinois see increases.

California’s good news isn’t enough to change what Newsom calls his “slow” and “stubborn” approach to reopening the world’s fifth-largest economy. He again cautioned people against “being overly exuberant” about those coronavirus numbers, pointing to a “decline in the rate of decline” of hospitalizations.

While California’s 14-day average of hospitalizations is down, the 7-day average is up ever so slightly to 2,241 patients. The number peaked in July at more than 7,100.

“Boy, what more of a reminder do you need than seeing these numbers begin to plateau?” Newsom said Monday during his weekly news conference.

Hospitalizations are trending younger in Los Angeles County, where people 18 to 29 now account for about 10% of all coronavirus-related hospitalizations compared with 5% in mid-May. Los Angeles County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer said it was one of the troubling trends in the nation’s most populous county with about 10 million residents.

Collectively, people 18 to 49 now account for 58% of all new coronavirus cases in the county.

“If you were to add teenagers in the mix – these are oftentimes young people who may be out socializing – individuals between the ages of 12 and 50 account for fully 68%,” she said.

Newsom’s go-slow approach has frustrated the state’s tourism industry, which is trying to recover after seven months of shutdown. As of last week, the state has lifted its most severe restrictions on all but 10 of the state’s 58 counties, with another update scheduled for Tuesday.

Earlier this month, the Newsom administration for the first time said it was OK for up to three households to gather but only if it is outdoors and people remain socially distanced.

But Newsom still has not allowed for large public gatherings or theme parks to reopen, even with modifications. The Walt Disney Co. has criticized the state for delaying reopening rules for theme parks, saying it contributed to the company’s decision to lay off 28,000 workers at its parks in California and Florida.

Even the unions representing Disney employees have changed their stance, sending Newsom a letter on Monday urging him to allow theme parks to reopen. The unions, representing about 10,000 Disneyland workers, told Newsom in June it was unsafe to open theme parks. But they now say Disney has a testing program and measures in place for personal protective equipment and ventilation.

“We are confident that with these protocols set in place, Disneyland will be able to fully reopen safely,” said Andrea Zinder, president of UFCW 324.

Newsom said he plans to announce guidelines for theme parks on Tuesday, hinting he might have different rules for different types of theme parks.

“I hope one recognizes our stubbornness on a health-first, data driven decision making process is done with our eyes wide open on what’s happening now around the world,” Newsom said. “We have to maintain that vigilance so we can avoid any further increase in transmission.”

Much of the U.S. is seeing an uptick in coronavirus cases and hospitalizations, with the Midwest seeing some of the worst spikes. The Northeast was the hardest hit in the spring, and the tri-state region of New York, Connecticut and New Jersey instituted rules requiring travelers from states with a high-rate of coronavirus spread to quarantine for two weeks upon entering.

Monday, Newsom said he was not considering similar rules for travelers to California. But he added: “We always maintain an openness to those considerations.”

“We have done better than other states,” Newsom said, adding the percentage of positive tests in California for the coronavirus has never exceeded 8%. The most recent weekly rate is 2.4%.

“We had to be tough and we’ve had to be vigilant and we had to be mindful of the changing dynamics of this pandemic,” he said.

Source Article from https://www.kcra.com/article/californias-feared-surge-of-virus-cases-hasnt-happened/34419757

HONOLULU (KHON2) — The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center issued a tsunami advisory for Hawaii on Monday afternoon.

[Hawaii’s Weather Station – Latest in Hawaii weather]

This was triggered by a 7.5 magnitude earthquake that struck the south of Alaska.

Though officials do not expect a major tsunami to hit the state, they noted sea-level changes–one-foot waves–near Hilo and Kahului.

These recorded changes were just above the advisory level and could pose a hazard to swimmers, boaters, and people near the shore, at beaches and at harbors and marinas.

Due to the advisory and as a precaution, all beaches and low-lying coastal areas will be closed for the rest of the day, according to Hawaii County Civil Defense.

Latest Stories on KHON2

Source Article from https://www.khon2.com/local-news/big-island-beaches-closed-after-alaska-earthquake-triggers-tsunami-advisory-for-hawaii/

JANESVILLE, Wis.– A judge’s ruling is shaping how bars and restaurants will look for the next couple of weeks.

A Barron County judge reinstated Gov. Tony Evers’ emergency order to limit capacity of bars and restaurants to 25%. The Tavern League of Wisconsin fought the order in court and lost.

That ruling feels personal to Kevin Riley.

“They’re knocking down all the small guys,” Riley said.

Riley owns Riley’s Sports Bar and Grill in Downtown Janesville, where he said capacity rules have made this year especially difficult.

“Absolutely, it hurts us,” Riley said. “It hurts the working people out there, too.”

The governor’s latest rule, which a judge upheld Monday, limits capacity to 25%. Riley has already been limiting crowds at his bar.

“I don’t want to break any rules. I don’t want anybody getting sick in here, and I don’t want my bar to be shut down for that reason either,” Riley said.

Riley didn’t feel the need for Evers to make this rule that significantly impacts his industry.

“I’m for what the cause is, but I’m not for him just shutting down one individual sector of the state, and that’s the tavern league and the restaurant industry,” Riley said.

“This critically important ruling will help us prevent the spread of the virus by restoring limits on public gatherings,” Evers said in a statement.

Riley said limiting public gatherings should happen across the board, not just to bars and restaurants.

“We are obviously disappointed in the ruling and the catastrophic effects is will continue to have on small businesses across Wisconsin,” Tavern League of Wisconsin President Chris Marsicano said in a statement.

The order is in effect until Nov. 6. Breaking it could cost establishments $500.

Source Article from https://www.channel3000.com/it-hurts-us-bar-restaurant-owners-react-to-judge-reinstating-25-capacity-limit/