Travel Ban – R&R – Reachout and Rebuild

Pandemic: How did Trump’s America Screw up?

David Posnett — Wed, 02 Sep 2020 21:33:55 +0000

http://www.ipsnews.net/2020/05/america-leads-world-covid-19-deaths/

The United States has just 4% of the world’s population but over 25% of its confirmed COVID‑19 cases and deaths. With arguably the most advanced healthcare research and top hospitals and doctors, it seems difficult to fathom. What the hell went wrong?

Two friends (neither of them are Trump apologists) could not convincingly list the major ways in which this country and its leader, Trump, screwed up. So I asked others:

One friend came up with this list of 14 points regarding Trump’s failures:

He didn’t follow the procedures laid out in the pandemic plan the Obama administration left for him.
He had too many exceptions to the China travel ban.
He didn’t implement a European travel ban and that was where most of the NY cases that spread across the country came from.
He didn’t invoke the war powers act to manufacture PPE or ventilators or tests, which forced states to bid against each other and foreign governments, drove up prices and resulted in unnecessary shortages.
He has prioritized financial aid to large companies over aid to states and localities.
He stockpiled supplies at the federal level, bidding against states, without a cogent plan for distributing them to the states as needed and reportedly sending them to whomever spoke to or flattered him or Kushner.
He didn’t mandate masks and repeatedly said and demonstrated that they aren’t important, instead holding rallies, and time and again appearing in televised press conferences with others in a manner that flouts social distancing and mask wearing.
He didn’t allow scientists to speak at his televised daily briefings and instead spread misinformation about the severity of the pandemic and “how well” we’re doing.
He minimized the importance of and sought to reduce testing and tracking.
He implicitly and explicitly threatened scientists who tried to level with the public by expressing or implying by leak or tweet the vulnerability of their positions to his whims (Fauci) or by exiling them to travel for information sessions (Birx) which has most likely restricted the flow of accurate information to the public.
He recommended hydroxychloroquine and suggested treatment by light and cleansers such Clorox.
He pressured the FDA to authorize the use of convalescent blood plasma, skipping trials and full analysis of data.
He recommended schools and the economy open universally instead of setting federal standards for the number of cases or other criteria required to do so. (And I believe he has threatened to reduce or eliminate federal aid to school districts that don’t fully offer in-person school regardless of their numbers.)
He calls it the China flu, endangering Asian Americans.

Here is another list largely based on an excellent article by Ed Yong in the Atlantic.

Summary. The richest country in the world still lacks sufficient testing to accurately count its sick citizens and to initiate effective contact tracing. Chronic underfunding of public health neutered the nation’s ability to prevent the pathogen’s spread.
We should have seen this coming. In recent decades, epidemics of SARS, MERS, Ebola, H1N1 flu, Zika, and monkeypox showed the havoc that new and reemergent pathogens could wreak. Health experts, business leaders, and even middle schoolers ran simulated exercises to game out the spread of new diseases. Back in 2018 Ed Young warned us in the Atlantic about the fragility of the nation’s health-care system and our poor state of preparation for a pandemic. COVID‑19 is merely a harbinger of worse plagues to come. The U.S. cannot prepare for these inevitable crises if it returns to normal, as many of us ache to do.
Isolationism. Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. has withdrawn from several international partnerships and antagonized its allies. It has a seat on the WHO’s executive board, but left that position empty, only filling it this May, when the pandemic was in full swing. Since 2017, Trump has pulled more than 30 staffers out of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s office in China, who could have warned about the spreading coronavirus. Last July, he defunded an American epidemiologist embedded within China’s CDC. America First was America oblivious.
Trump’s dismissal of expertise and evidence. He filled his administration with inexperienced newcomers, while depicting career civil servants as part of a “deep state.” In 2018, he dismantled an office that had been assembled specifically to prepare for nascent pandemics. American intelligence agencies warned about the coronavirus threat in January, but Trump habitually disregards intelligence briefings. The secretary of health and human services, Alex Azar, offered similar counsel, and was ignored.
Early missteps. “By early February, we should have triggered a series of actions, precisely zero of which were taken.” Trump could have spent those crucial early weeks mass-producing tests to detect the virus, asking companies to manufacture protective equipment and ventilators. Instead, he focused on the border. Travel bans are woefully inefficient at restricting either travel or viruses. They prompt people to seek indirect routes via third-party countries, or to deliberately hide their symptoms. They are often porous: Trump’s included numerous exceptions,
Misleading the public. Genetic evidence shows that the specific viruses that triggered the first big outbreaks, in Washington State, didn’t land until mid-February. The country could have used the time between January and mid-February to prepare. Instead, Trump, assured Americans that “the coronavirus is very much under control,” and “like a miracle, it will disappear.” On February 26, Trump asserted that cases were “going to be down to close to zero.” Over the next two months, at least 1 million Americans were infected.
Testing debacle. The CDC developed and distributed its own diagnostic tests in late January. These proved useless because of a faulty chemical component. Tests were in such short supply, and the criteria for getting them were so laughably stringent, that by the end of February, tens of thousands of Americans had likely been infected but only hundreds had been tested. Private labs were strangled by FDA bureaucracy. It’s hard to overstate how thoroughly the testing debacle incapacitated the U.S. People with debilitating symptoms couldn’t find out what was wrong with them. Health officials couldn’t cut off chains of transmission by identifying people who were sick and asking them to isolate themselves.
Superspreader events at indoor gatherings. The odds of catching the virus from an infected person are roughly 19 times higher indoors than in open air. Among crowds clustered in prolonged proximity, the coronavirus ran rampant in the conference rooms of a Boston hotel, the cabins of the Diamond Princess cruise ship, and a church hall in Washington State where a choir practiced for just a few hours. The hardest hit were prisons and nursing homes: as of mid-June, nursing homes accounted for 40 percent of coronavirus deaths. That includes both residents and staff. Before the pandemic, three in four nursing homes were understaffed, and four in five had recently been cited for failures in infection control. A Seattle nursing home was one of the first COVID‑19 hot spots, but similar facilities weren’t provided with tests and personal protective equipment. Rather than girding these facilities against the pandemic, the Department of Health and Human Services paused nursing-home inspections in March, passing the buck to the states.
No priority for the public healthcare system. “Especially in the beginning, we catered our entire [COVID‑19] response to the 20 percent of people who required hospitalization, rather than preventing transmission in the community.” The latter is the job of the public-health system, which prevents sickness in populations instead of merely treating it in individuals. That system pairs uneasily with a national temperament that views health as a matter of personal responsibility rather than a collective good. “As public health did its job, it became a target” of budget cuts, says Lori Freeman, the CEO of the National Association of County and City Health Officials. Today, the U.S. spends just 2.5 percent of its gigantic health-care budget on public health. Underfunded health departments are also struggling to deal with opioid addiction, climbing obesity rates, contaminated water, and easily preventable diseases. Since the last recession, in 2009, chronically strapped local health departments have lost 55,000 jobs—a quarter of their workforce.
Pandemic preparedness. The US profit-driven healthcare system has scant incentive to invest in spare beds, stockpiled supplies, peacetime drills, and layered contingency plans—the essence of pandemic preparedness. America’s hospitals have been pruned and stretched by market forces to run close to full capacity, with little ability to adapt in a crisis.
Face masks and PPE fiasco. About half of the world’s face masks, are made in China, some of them in Hubei province. When that region became the pandemic epicenter, the mask supply shriveled just as global demand spiked. The Trump administration turned to the Strategic National Stockpile, only to find that the 100 million respirators and masks that had been dispersed during the 2009 flu pandemic were never replaced. Just 13 million respirators were left. In April, four in five frontline nurses said they didn’t have enough protective equipment. Some solicited donations from the public, or navigated back-alley deals and internet scams. In April, four in five frontline nurses said they didn’t have enough protective equipment. Some solicited donations from the public, or navigated a morass of back-alley deals and internet scams. The federal government could have mitigated those problems by buying supplies at economies of scale and distributing them according to need. Instead, in March, Trump told America’s governors to “try getting it yourselves.” As usual, health care was a matter of capitalism and connections. In New York, rich hospitals bought their way out of their protective-equipment shortfall, while neighbors in poorer, more diverse parts of the city rationed their supplies.
Delayed action led to more deaths. Trump finally declared a national emergency on March 13, and before governors and mayors subsequently issued formal stay-at-home orders, or closed schools, shops, and restaurants. A study showed that the U.S. could have averted 36,000 COVID‑19 deaths if leaders had enacted social-distancing measures just a week earlier.
Delayed action led to economic disaster. The indiscriminate lockdown was necessary only because America’s leaders wasted months of prep time. Deploying this blunt policy instrument came at enormous cost. Unemployment rose to 14.7 percent, the highest level since record-keeping began, in 1948. More than 26 million people lost their jobs, a catastrophe in a country that ties health care to employment.
The social safety net. The dismantling of America’s social safety net left Black people with less income and higher unemployment. They make up a disproportionate share of the low-paid “essential workers” who were expected to staff grocery stores and warehouses, clean buildings, and deliver mail while the pandemic raged around them. Earning hourly wages without paid sick leave, they couldn’t afford to miss shifts even when symptomatic. They faced risky commutes on crowded public transportation.
Distribution of information. Distribution of accurate information is an important defense against an epidemic’s spread. The largely unregulated, social-media-based communications infrastructure almost ensures that misinformation will proliferate fast. In fact, an infodemic of falsehoods spread alongside the actual virus. For example, in March, a small and severely flawed French study suggested that the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine could treat COVID‑19. Published in a minor journal, it likely would have been ignored a decade ago. But in 2020, it wended its way to Donald Trump via a chain of credulity that included Fox News, Elon Musk, and Dr. Oz. Trump spent months touting the drug as a miracle cure despite mounting evidence to the contrary, causing shortages for people who actually needed it to treat lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.
Lack of leadership in a pandemic. During a pandemic, leaders must rally the public, tell the truth, and speak clearly and consistently. Instead, Trump repeatedly contradicted public-health experts, his scientific advisers, and himself. He said that “nobody ever thought a thing like [the pandemic] could happen” and also that he “felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic.” No one should be shocked that a liar who has made almost 20,000 false or misleading claims during his presidency would lie about whether the U.S. had the pandemic under control; that a racist who gave birth to birtherism would do little to stop a virus that was disproportionately killing Black people; that a xenophobe who presided over the creation of new immigrant-detention centers would order meatpacking plants with a substantial immigrant workforce to remain open; that a cruel man devoid of empathy would fail to calm fearful citizens; that a narcissist who cannot stand to be upstaged would refuse to tap the deep well of experts at his disposal; that a scion of nepotism would hand control of a shadow coronavirus task force to his unqualified son-in-law; that an armchair polymath would claim to have a “natural ability” at medicine and display it by wondering out loud about the curative potential of injecting disinfectant; that an egotist incapable of admitting failure would try to distract from his greatest one by blaming China, defunding the WHO, and promoting miracle drugs; or that a president who has been shielded by his party from any shred of accountability would say, when asked about the lack of testing, “I don’t take any responsibility at all.” A pandemic demands the coordinated efforts of dozens of agencies. “In the best circumstances, it’s hard to make the bureaucracy move quickly,” per Ron Klain. “It moves if the president stands on a table and says, ‘Move quickly.’ But it really doesn’t move if he’s sitting at his desk saying it’s not a big deal.”
Trump has corrupted the CDC. On February 25, the agency’s respiratory-disease chief, Nancy Messonnier, shocked people by raising the possibility of school closures and saying that “disruption to everyday life might be severe.” Trump was reportedly enraged. In response, he seems to have benched the entire agency. The CDC led the way in every recent domestic disease outbreak and has been the inspiration and template for public-health agencies around the world. But during the three months when some 2 million Americans contracted COVID‑19 and the death toll topped 100,000, the agency didn’t hold a single press conference. Its detailed guidelines on reopening the country were shelved for a month while the White House released its own uselessly vague plan.
Trump never rallied the country. Despite declaring himself a “wartime president,” he merely presided over a culture war, turning public health into yet another politicized cage match. Abetted by supporters in the conservative media, he framed measures that protect against the virus, from masks to social distancing, as liberal and anti-American. Armed anti-lockdown protesters demonstrated at government buildings while Trump egged them on, urging them to “LIBERATE” Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia. Several public-health officials left their jobs over harassment and threats.

The Psychology of Trump Supporters

David Posnett — Wed, 10 Jul 2019 01:09:20 +0000

Bobby Azarian Ph.D. posted several months ago “A Complete Psychological Analysis of Trump’s Support” to help make sense of Trump’s apparent invincibility.

We should try and understand the emotinal underpinnings of those that we find difficult to rationally speak to or correspond with. For example, if volunteers are to engage in “deep canvassing” as discussed elsewhere on this blog, they need to understand what motivates the people they are talking with.

Azarian’s piece in the respectable journal Psychology Today is itself a summary of many publications in the psychology literature. It is interesting. It lists 14 categories which Trump supporters may fall in to. Here is a brief version, but feel free to read the full text and look at a video on Terror Management Theory by Azarian.

1. Practicality Trumps Morality

For some wealthy people, it’s simply a financial matter. Trump offers tax cuts for the rich and wants to do away with government regulation that gets in the way of businessmen making money, even when that regulation exists for the purpose of protecting the environment. Others, like blue-collared workers, like the fact that the president is trying to bring jobs back to America from places like China. Some people who genuinely are not racist (those who are will be discussed later) simply want stronger immigration laws because they know that a country with open borders is not sustainable. These people have put their practical concerns above their moral ones. To them, it does not make a difference if he’s a vagina-grabber, or if his campaign team colluded with Russia to help him defeat his political opponent. It is unknown whether these people are eternally bound to Trump in the way others are, but we may soon find…

2. The Brain’s Attention System Is More Strongly Engaged by Trump

According to a study that monitored brain activity while participants watched 40 minutes of political ads and debate clips from the presidential candidates, Donald Trump is unique in his ability to keep the brain engaged. While Hillary Clinton could only hold attention for so long, Trump kept both attention and emotional arousal high throughout the viewing session. This pattern of activity was seen even when Trump made remarks that individuals didn’t necessarily agree with. His showmanship and simple language clearly resonate with some at a visceral level.

3. America’s Obsession with Entertainment and Celebrities

Essentially, the loyalty of Trump supporters may in part be explained by America’s addiction to entertainment and reality TV. To some, it doesn’t matter what Trump actually says because he’s so amusing to watch. With the Donald, you are always left wondering what outrageous thing he is going to say or do next. He keeps us on the edge of our seat, and for that reason, some Trump supporters will forgive anything he says. They are happy as long as they are kept entertained.

4. “Some Men Just Want to Watch the World Burn.”

Some people are supporting Trump simply to be rebellious or to introduce chaos into the political system. They may have such distaste for the establishment and democrats like Hillary Clinton that their support for Trump is a symbolic middle finger directed at Washington. These people may have other issues, like an innate desire to troll others or an obsession with schadenfreude.

5. The Fear Factor: Conservatives Are More Sensitive to Threat

Science has shown that the conservative brain has an exaggerated fear response when faced with stimuli that may be perceived as threatening. A 2008 study in the prestigious journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological reaction to startling noises and graphic images compared to liberals. A brain-imaging study published in Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala — a structure that is electrically active during states of fear and anxiety. And a 2014 fMRI study found that it is possible to predict whether someone is a liberal or conservative simply by looking at their brain activity while they view threatening or disgusting images, such as mutilated bodies. Specifically, the brains of self-identified conservatives generated more activity overall in response to the disturbing images.

These brain responses are automatic and not influenced by logic or reason. As long as Trump continues to portray Muslims and Hispanic immigrants as imminent threats, many conservative brains will involuntarily light up like light bulbs being controlled by a switch. Fear keeps his followers energized and focused on safety. And when you think you’ve found your protector, you become less concerned with offensive and divisive remarks.

6. The Power of Mortality Reminders and Perceived Existential Threat

A well-supported theory from social psychology, known as Terror Management Theory, explains why Trump’s fear mongering is doubly effective. The theory is based on the fact that humans have a unique awareness of their own mortality. The inevitably of one’s death creates existential terror and anxiety that is always residing below the surface. In order to manage this terror, humans adopt cultural worldviews — like religions, political ideologies, and national identities — that act as a buffer by instilling life with meaning and value.

Terror Management Theory predicts that when people are reminded of their own mortality, which happens with fear mongering, they will more strongly defend those who share their worldviews and national or ethnic identity, and act out more aggressively towards those who do not. Hundreds of studies have supported this hypothesis, and some have specifically shown that triggering thoughts of death tends to shift people towards the right.

Not only do death reminders increase nationalism, they may influence voting habits in favor of more conservative candidates. And more disturbingly, in a study with American students, scientists found that making mortality salient increased support for extreme military interventions by American forces that could kill thousands of civilians overseas. Interestingly, the effect was present only in conservatives.

By constantly emphasizing existential threat, Trump may be creating a psychological condition that makes the brain respond positively rather than negatively to bigoted statements and divisive rhetoric.

In the video, the author expands and offers a potential solution to the problem.

7. The Dunning-Kruger Effect: Humans Often Overestimate Their Political Expertise

Some who support Donald Trump are under-informed or misinformed about the issues at hand. When Trump tells them that crime is skyrocketing in the United States, or that the economy is the worst it’s ever been, they simply take his word for it.

The Dunning-Kruger effect explains that the problem isn’t just that they are misinformed; it’s that they are completely unaware that they are misinformed, which creates a double burden.

Studies have shown that people who lack expertise in some area of knowledge often have a cognitive bias that prevents them from realizing that they lack expertise. As psychologist David Dunning puts it in an op-ed for Politico, “The knowledge and intelligence that are required to be good at a task are often the same qualities needed to recognize that one is not good at that task — and if one lacks such knowledge and intelligence, one remains ignorant that one is not good at the task. This includes political judgment.” These people cannot be reached because they mistakenly believe they are the ones who should be reaching others.

8. Relative Deprivation — A Misguided Sense of Entitlement

Relative deprivation refers to the experience of being deprived of something to which one believes they are entitled. It is the discontent felt when one compares their position in life to others who they feel are equal or inferior but have unfairly had more success than them.

Common explanations for Trump’s popularity among non-bigoted voters involve economics. There is no doubt that some Trump supporters are simply angry that American jobs are being lost to Mexico and China, which is certainly understandable, although these loyalists often ignore the fact that some of these careers are actually being lost due to the accelerating pace of automation.

These Trump supporters are experiencing relative deprivation, and are common among the swing states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. This kind of deprivation is specifically referred to as “relative,” as opposed to “absolute,” because the feeling is often based on a skewed perception of what one is entitled to.

9. Lack of Exposure to Dissimilar Others

Intergroup contact refers to contact with members of groups that are outside one’s own, which has been experimentally shown to reduce prejudice. As such, it’s important to note that there is growing evidence that Trump’s white supporters have experienced significantly less contact with minorities than other Americans. For example, a 2016 study found that “…the racial and ethnic isolation of Whites at the zip-code level is one of the strongest predictors of Trump support.” This correlation persisted while controlling for dozens of other variables. In agreement with this finding, the same researchers found that support for Trump increased with the voters’ physical distance from the Mexican border. These racial biases might be more implicit than explicit, the latter which is addressed in #14.

10. Trump’s Conspiracy Theories Target the Mentally Vulnerable

While the conspiracy theory crowd — who predominantly support Donald Trump and crackpot allies like Alex Jones and the shadowy QAnon — may appear to just be an odd quirk of modern society, some of them may suffer from psychological illnesses that involve paranoia and delusions, such as schizophrenia, or are at least vulnerable to them, like those with schizotypy personalities.

The link between schizotypy and belief in conspiracy theories is well-established, and a recent study published in the journal Psychiatry Research has demonstrated that it is still very prevalent in the population. The researchers found that those who were more likely to believe in outlandish conspiracy theories, such as the idea that the U.S. government created the AIDS epidemic, consistently scored high on measures of “odd beliefs and magical thinking.” One feature of magical thinking is a tendency to make connections between things that are actually unrelated in reality.

Donald Trump and media allies target these people directly. All one has to do is visit alt-right websites and discussion boards to see the evidence for such manipulation.

11. Trump Taps into the Nation’s Collective Narcissism

Collective narcissism is an unrealistic shared belief in the greatness of one’s national group. It often occurs when a group who believes it represents the ‘true identity’ of a nation — the ‘ingroup,’ in this case White Americans — perceives itself as being disadvantaged compared to outgroups who are getting ahead of them ‘unrightfully.’ This psychological phenomenon is related to relative deprivation (#6).

A study published last year in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science found a direct link between national collective narcissism and support for Donald Trump. This correlation was discovered by researchers at the University of Warsaw, who surveyed over 400 Americans with a series of questionnaires about political and social beliefs. Where individual narcissism causes aggressiveness toward other individuals, collective narcissism involves negative attitudes and aggression toward ‘outsider’ groups (outgroups), who are perceived as threats.

Donald Trump exacerbates collective narcissism with his anti-immigrant, anti-elitist, and strongly nationalistic rhetoric. By referring to his supporters, an overwhelmingly white group, as being “true patriots” or “real Americans,” he promotes a brand of populism that is the epitome of “identity politics,” a term that is usually associated with the political left. Left-wing identity politics, as misguided as they may sometimes be, are generally aimed at achieving equality, while the right-wing brand is based on a belief that one nationality or race is superior or entitled to success and wealth for no other reason than identity.

12. The Desire to Want to Dominate Others

Social dominance orientation (SDO) — which is distinct from but related to authoritarian personality (#13) — refers to people who have a preference for the societal hierarchy of groups, specifically with a structure in which the high-status groups have dominance over the low-status ones. Those with SDO are typically dominant, tough-minded, and driven by self-interest.

In Trump’s speeches, he appeals to those with SDO by repeatedly making a clear distinction between groups that have a generally higher status in society (White), and those groups that are typically thought of as belonging to a lower status (immigrants and minorities). A 2016 survey study of 406 American adults published last year in the journal Personality and Individual Differences found that those who scored high on both SDO and authoritarianism were more likely to vote for Trump in the election.

13. Authoritarian Personality

Authoritarianism refers to the advocacy or enforcement of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom, and is commonly associated with a lack of concern for the opinions or needs of others. Authoritarian personality is characterized by belief in total and complete obedience to authority. Those with this personality often display aggression toward outgroup members, submissiveness to authority, resistance to new experiences, and a rigid hierarchical view of society. Authoritarianism is often triggered by fear, making it easy for leaders who exaggerate threat or fear monger to gain their allegiance.

Although authoritarian personality is found among liberals, it is more common among the right-wing around the world. President Trump’s speeches, which are laced with absolutist terms like “losers” and “complete disasters,” are naturally appealing to those with such a personality.

While research showed that Republican voters in the U.S. scored higher than Democrats on measures of authoritarianism before Trump emerged on the political scene, a 2016 Politico survey found that high authoritarians greatly favored then-candidate Trump, which led to a correct prediction that he would win the election, despite the polls saying otherwise.

14. Racism and Bigotry

It would be grossly unfair and inaccurate to say that every one of Trump’s supporters have prejudice against ethnic and religious minorities, but it would be equally inaccurate to say that few do. The Republican party, going at least as far back to Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy,” has historically used tactics that appealed to bigotry, such as lacing speeches with “dog whistles” — code words that signaled prejudice toward minorities that were designed to be heard by racists but no one else.

While the dog whistles of the past were subtler, Trump’s signaling is sometimes shockingly direct. There’s no denying that he routinely appeals to racist and bigoted supporters when he calls Muslims “dangerous” and Mexican immigrants “rapists” and “murderers,” often in a blanketed fashion. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a recent study has shown that support for Trump is correlated with a standard scale of modern racism.

“Trump Slump” in tourism

David Posnett — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 17:53:32 +0000

I have previously posted on the “Trump Slump” in tourism. And here, and here too. But it is time to reexamine the issue because the data over one solid year indicate that the slump is here to stay! How will this affect us locally? TBD.

U.S. Economy Losing Billions As ‘Trump Slump’ Continues In Tourism Sector

By Alexandra Talty , Women@Forbes

Disney Land. The Grand Canyon. The Golden Gate Bridge. Yosemite. The World Trade Center.

The United States has long been a bucket-list destination, but as executive announcement piles on executive announcement, international visitors are wary of choosing the tourism-behemoth for their next vacation.

Inbound arrivals have fallen 1.4% since January, while global arrivals have jumped 4.6%, leading many travel industry experts to say the ‘Trump Slump’ is real. Credit: Nick DeSantis, Forbes.

After the announcement of the first two travel bans in January and March, the number of international travelers arriving in the U.S. has dramatically dropped, according to ForwardKeys, a European travel-prediction firm.

https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-14/html/container.html

Looking at the number of U.S. inbound arrivals – or the number of international tourists arriving at airports around the country – the firm found that the number of visitors dropped 1.3% following the announcement of the first travel ban on January 27. On June 26, when the second ban was partially re-instated, inbound visitors dropped again by 2.8%.

Experts expected to see falling arrivals following the first executive announcement in January, when European interest in visiting the U.S. fell 12% but to see the number of arrivals impacted so quickly is startling.

“The confusing and convoluted travel bans have done nothing but worsen the country’s reputation around the world,” said Lee Abbamonte, an American travel expert who has been to every country in the world, in an email. Although he believes there should be a vetting process, he says that as it stands now, it is too stringent, and confusing for many international citizens.

A small percentage drop in arrivals is no small potatoes when translated into a dollar amount. In 2016, the U.S. travel and tourism industry generated over $1.5 trillion in economic output, supporting 7.6 million jobs, according to SelectUSA, an international trade analyst firm. That represents 2.7% of overall GDP.

“I’m not surprised inbound travel is dropping,” agrees Liz Carlson, a travel expert blogger who was recently named New Zealand’s top blogger, in an email. An American, Carlson lives in Wanaka, New Zealand. Most of her friends are foreigners, and Carlson says that each of the executive announcements, as well as laptop bans, have put many off from traveling to the land of the free and the brave.

She says, “Whenever I meet people traveling, everyone says something about it, and nothing is positive … My friends who have traveled there recently are worried about the rules where TSA can look through your phones or laptops.”

In March, after the second travel ban, Oxford Economics, an advisory and analysis firm, found that travel could drop by 8% due to the executive announcements and procedures to restrict immigration to the U.S.

“Our latest detailed findings confirm what our data has been predicting since the first travel ban. There has been a ‘Trump Slump,’ and the strong dollar has compounded it,” said ForwardKeys co-founder and CEO, Olivier Jager, in an email. “This must be worrying for the US economy – travel is a huge earner for the United States, and relative to the rest of the world, its tourism exports are losing ground.”

Tourism is the seventh largest employer in the US economy. In 2012, nearly 84% of travel companies identified themselves as small businesses. For those Americans, the outlook is bleak.

Over the first three months of Donald Trump’s presidency, 697,791 fewer foreigners visited the U.S. than normal, down 4.2% to 15.8 million people, according to new figures released by the U.S. Department of Commerce. That drop accounted for $2.7 billion in spending, according to Tourism Economics.

In cities like New York, foreign tourists spend four times as much as domestic tourists, so even slight drops in inbound arrivals spell big losses for the U.S. economy. According to US Travel, international travel spending directly supports 1.2 million American jobs, accounting for nearly $32.4 billion in wages. the typical overseas traveler spends around $4,360 when visiting the United States, over an 18 night stay.

Cities across the U.S. have seen the writing on the wall and are bracing for declining tourism revenues. Los Angeles Tourism board led the charge earlier this year, putting millions towards a marketing campaign to welcome foreigners with a gigantic human powered sign that welcomed incoming planes in four languages. Other tourism boards have followed suit with their own campaigns.

But as the third executive announcement is implemented and the Supreme Court hearing on the previous travel bans is cancelled, many industry experts wonder if this is just the beginning of another lagging sector in the U.S. economy as tourists choose destinations with easier, more comprehensive visa policies.

https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-14/html/container.html

Alexandra Talty is a writer and columnist, exploring the world on a journalist’s paycheck. Follow her adventures on Twitter and Instagram.

Comment (D. Posnett): I have wondered how a real estate mogul like Trump who owns hotels and golf courses does not seem to care about tourism. It is interesting to follow stock prices of major hotel chains like Hilton and Marriott and see that they are doing just fine. In fact, like Trump businesses, they are expanding internationally. So perhaps this means that worldwide tourism is not that much affected. It is just that international tourists are chosing to go elsewhere rather than visiting the USA. For example, as the per Dan Caplinger in the Motely Fool: “Marriott sees prosperous days ahead. Sorenson noted that the international opportunity that the hotel company has is huge, pointing out that more than half of rooms under development are located outside North America“.

So much for those American jobs that Trump voters had bet on.

Preet Bharara, Sally Yates & James Comey: “You are Fired!”

David Posnett — Thu, 11 May 2017 14:46:00 +0000

It is “Apprentice” live!

FBI Director Comey is the latest official to fall foul of Trump mid-investigation. Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara had previously been dismissed

As reported on CNN

After President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, questions immediately arose about the President’s motivations…

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Comey’s firing was part of a “deeply troubling pattern from the Trump administration,” that appears to be linked to two other high-profile dismissals:

“They fired Sally Yates. They fired Preet Bharara. And they fired James Comey, the very man leading the investigation. This does not seem to be a coincidence,” Schumer said shortly after the announcement, calling for a special independent prosecutor into the Trump campaign’s ties to the Kremlin.

“Any person who he appoints to lead the Russian investigation will be concerned that he or she will meet the same fate as Director Comey,” he said.

CNN’s senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin was not buying the idea that Comey was sacked over the Clinton investigation, saying it was “absurd.”

Toobin branded the move a “grotesque abuse of power by the President of the United States,” comparing the sacking of Comey to President Richard Nixon’s firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the Watergate scandal.

James Comey

Why was he fired?

The Trump administration attributed Comey’s dismissal to his handling of the investigation into Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. In a signed letter released by the White House, Trump informed Comey that he was “hereby terminated and removed from office, effective immediately,” explaining that he reached the conclusion that the erstwhile director was “not able to effectively lead the bureau.”

What was he investigating?

As head of the FBI, he was overseeing the investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to the Kremlin. Democrats have ridiculed the notion that the Clinton issue is what truly prompted Comey’s dismissal, drawing parallels to Watergate-era firings and suggesting Comey was getting too close to the White House with the Russia probe.

Where is the investigation now?

At a hearing last week, Comey confirmed that the FBI’s investigation into accusations of coordination between Trump’s presidential campaign and Russian officials was continuing. It’s not clear if the incoming FBI director will pick up where Comey left off.

Opinion: In firing Comey, Trump is playing with fire

Sally Yates

Why was she fired?

Ostensibly for her refusal to implement the first iteration of Trump’s ban on travelers from a number of Muslim-majority countries.

“The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in a statement at the time, explaining the President’s actions.

What was she investigating?

As part of the probe into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump administration, then-acting Attorney General Yates met with White House counsel to inform them that then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn wasn’t telling the truth about his interactions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and, as a result, represented a blackmail risk.

“We believed that General Flynn was compromised with respect to the Russians,” Yates said in a Senate subcommittee hearing aimed at gathering details of the Russian hacking of the 2016 election on Monday in Washington.

“Logic would tell you that you don’t want the national security adviser to be in a position where the Russians have leverage over him,” she added.

Where is the investigation now?

Yates said last Monday that she warned the White House earlier this year that former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn could be “essentially blackmailed by the Russians.”

What to know about Sally Yates

Preet Bharara

Preet Bharara, former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, was known as one of Wall Street’s fiercest watchdogs and a widely respected prosecutor.

Why was he fired?

Bharara first refused to resign along with 46 US attorneys across the country. Although it is common for incoming administrations to replace US attorneys when transitioning to power, Trump had previously assured Bharara that he’d keep his job.

Sources told CNN that Bharara had been told after a meeting with Trump in November that he could stay on, and that he felt blindsided by the request. He was fired after refusing to comply.

At the time, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren posted a series of tweets suggesting Bharara was removed in part because he “had authority over Trump Tower.”

Bharara suggested that this was indeed the case. “I wanted it to be on record that there was a deliberate decision to change (his) mind and fire me, particularly given what my office’s jurisdiction is,” he said.

What was he investigating?

Bharara’s office had many investigations ongoing at the time of his firing, including one involving Trump favorite Fox News. And then there’s the President’s claim that he was wiretapped in Trump Tower on orders of then-President Obama, whose investigation led back to the Southern District of New York. “Trump has undoubtedly decided that he wants his own pick rather than the choice of Senate adversary (and minority leader) Chuck Schumer in place as the top federal prosecutor in New York,” CNN legal analyst Paul Callan wrote in March.

Where is the investigation now?

Members of both parties have said they have seen no evidence to back up Trump’s allegations about Obama, and, addressing a hearing before the House Intelligence Committee, Comey said that he had “no information” to support claims by the President that he was wiretapped on the orders of his predecessor.

CNN’s Laura Jarrett, Jake Tapper, Stephen Collinson, Jeff Zeleny and Jeremy Diamond contributed to this report.

Trump Administration Cites Segregation-Era Ruling To Defend Its Travel Ban

David Posnett — Tue, 09 May 2017 15:30:26 +0000

Published by HUFFINGTON POST

POLITICS

05/08/2017 06:57 pm ET | Updated 2 hours ago

In 1971, the Supreme Court decided that courts shouldn’t investigate the motivations of officials who closed public pools rather than integrate them.

By Nick Baumann , Julia Craven

SHAWN THEW/POOL PHOTO/GETTY IMAGES

President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions at a White House discussion on March 29. Sessions’ Justice Department has cited a ruling in a swimming pool closure case in its defense of the travel ban.

WASHINGTON ― In a brief defending its ban on citizens from six Muslim-majority countries, President Donald Trump’s Justice Department approvingly cited a segregation-era Supreme Court decision that allowed Jackson, Mississippi, to close public pools rather than integrate them.

In the early 1960s, courts ordered Jackson to desegregate its public parks, which included five swimming pools. Instead, the city decided to close the pools. Black residents of Jackson sued. But in 1971, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, decided that closing the pools rather than integrating them was just fine.

The dissents, even at the time, were furious. “May a State in order to avoid integration of the races abolish all of its public schools?” Justice William O. Douglas asked in his dissent.

“I had thought official policies forbidding or discouraging joint use of public facilities by Negroes and whites were at war with the Equal Protection Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Byron White wrote in another dissent. “Our cases make it unquestionably clear, as all of us agree, that a city or State may not enforce such a policy by maintaining officially separate facilities for the two races. It is also my view, but apparently not that of the majority, that a State may not have an official stance against desegregating public facilities and implement it by closing those facilities in response to a desegregation order.”

The ruling in Palmer v. Thompson didn’t explicitly uphold segregation. But it did call for courts to avoid investigating the constitutionality of officials’ motivations.

“It is difficult or impossible for any court to determine the ‘sole’ or ‘dominant’ motivation behind the choices of a group of legislators,” the majority opinion said. “Furthermore, there is an element of futility in a judicial attempt to invalidate a law because of the bad motives of its supporters.”

The Trump administration emphasizes this in its citation of the case, arguing that looking into “governmental purpose outside the operative terms of governmental action and official pronouncements” is “fraught with practical ‘pitfalls’ and ‘hazards’ that would make courts’ task ‘extremely difficult.’”

But in some cases, such as the closure of the Jackson pools, officials’ motivations are clear, said Paul Brest, the director of Stanford University’s Law and Policy Lab.

“When it is absolutely clear that an official acted for unconstitutional purposes … [the courts] should be willing to strike down that decision because, even though the decision might have been reached legitimately, a public official violates the constitution when he or she acts for unconstitutional reasons,” Brest said. “It’s as simple as that. … Race discrimination is the best example of where courts are quite willing to take people’s motivations into account — or religious discrimination.”

Palmer is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever handed down in regards to race, said Michele Goodwin, the chancellor’s professor of law at the University of California, Irvine.

“Citing Palmer is like citing Buck v. Bell for a premise of equal protection,” Goodwin says. (Buck v. Bell legalized eugenics.) She added that a case like Palmer also doesn’t hold up over time.

“[Palmer] doesn’t represent our view of how law, how people, how society [and] how equality has evolved in the United States,” she said. “To cite a case that, in and of itself, coheres ideas about inequality and explicit racism in spaces where racism could mean the end of someone’s life, then one would really have to question why a president would cite such a case — given how much it’s been refuted.”

John Paul Schnapper-Casteras, a special counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, wrote in a Sunday blog post that it’s “stunning” to see the Department of Justice approvingly cite a case that “at best allowed pretextual measures for avoiding racial integration ― and, more realistically, facilitated segregation by turning a blind eye to what was clearly going on in the City of Jackson.”

Justice Department lawyers know exactly what they’re doing ― citing different doctrines in an attempt to thwart any reason to examine what Trump on the campaign trail “said, very unambiguously, was to ban Muslims from coming into the country,” he told HuffPost.

“This is less about national security and more about them trying to find any way to insulate the motivation behind this order. Sometimes they invoke national security cases,” Schnapper-Casteras said. “In this case, they invoked a case about segregation.”

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.

LAURA BUCKMAN / REUTERS

President Donald Trump’s executive order on travel from Muslim-majority nations draws protests at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport on Jan. 29. On the campaign trail, Trump often spoke of a ban on Muslims entering the U.S.

But there’s a clear reason why the Trump administration doesn’t want the courts to consider potential motivations for Trump’s revised travel ban: The idea that the president’s intent was to discriminate against Muslims has come up in prior rulings against his executive order. As a candidate, Trump called for a “complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the U.S. and has spoken disparagingly of refugees. He and the White House say the travel executive orders are not the same as a Muslim ban, but opponents say his past statements show they likely had the same motivation.

The executive order blocks certain foreign nationals of six Muslim-majority nations ― Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen ― from the U.S. for 90 days. (An earlier executive order had included Iraq.) It also bans all refugees for 120 days and cuts total refugee resettlement numbers for the year by more than half of the previous cap. The order was blocked in the courts before implementation.

Pools have a history as a racial flashpoint. In the 1960s, “so unacceptable through almost all of the South was the idea of blacks and whites swimming together that even the Gulf of Mexico was off-limits to blacks in some areas,” The New York Times reported in 2006.

White racial anxiety about swimming was common in the North, too. “Water fueled white racism,” Marta Gutman, a professor at the City College of New York, wrote in a 2008 paper.

“The practice of bathing had expanded to include swimming for exercise, but water retained the longstanding symbolic link with purity,” Gutman wrote. “Swimming pools became places where those seen as impure or polluted would be excluded (even though water had to be sanitized in order to be pure). When pressed to integrate, white operators protested pools would have to be emptied, scrubbed clean and reﬁlled with fresh water after black children swam in them.”

Airplanes were segregated, too.

Elise Foley and Ryan Reilly contributed reporting.

Sally Yates Mops The Floor With GOP’s Ted Cruz While Schooling Him On Constitutional Law

David Posnett — Tue, 09 May 2017 14:57:29 +0000

Posted on DailyKos.com

By Leslie Salzillo

Monday May 08, 2017 · 5:30 PM EDT

During the Russian probe hearings on Monday, former acting DOJ Attorney General Sally Yates batted off Trump-supporting Republicans like flies during their attempts to discredit, shame and trick her. They failed, and once again, the GOP embarrassed the country in efforts to defend Donald Trump.

During one particular pompous and unrelated inquisition, Texas Senator Ted Cruz pompously decides to question Yates on the Trump’s Muslim ban rather than Mike Flynn or the Trump-Russia investigation — the reasons for the hearing. Cruz found himself messing with the wrong person, as he tried to edify Yates on Trump’s authority using a section of the INA/Immigration and Nationality Act. Here is the transcript of the exchange.

Ted Cruz: Earlier when Chairman Graham asked you that, I thought you declined to answer so perhaps I misunderstood that.

Sally Yates: And I may have misunderstood the question. I thought the question I declined to answer was a different one than that, so I’m glad I got a chance to clear it up.

Ted Cruz: Okay, so you have no information of any interceptions of the Bernie Sanders campaign, the Hillary Clinton campaign or other candidates in the 2016 campaigns.

Sally Yates: No

Cruz then goes off the hearing’s topic to Trump’s Muslim ban. This is where his true snide and smug self was revealed for all to see.

Ted Cruz: Okay. Let’s revisit the topic, Miss Yates, that you and Senator Cornyn were talking about.

Sally Yates: Okay.

Ted Cruz: Um. Is it correct that the Constitution vests the authority in the President?

Sally Yates: Yes.

Ted Cruz: And if an attorney general disagrees with the policy decision of the President — a policy decision that is lawful, does the attorney general have the authority to direct the Department of Justice to defy the President’s order?

Sally Yates: I don’t know whether the attorney general has the authority to do that or not but I don’t think it would be a good idea, and that’s not what I did in this case.

Ted Cruz: Well, are you familiar with 8 U.S. Code § 1182?

Sally Yates: Not off the top of my head, no.

Ted Cruz: Well, It, it is the binding statutory authority for the president’s executive order your refused to implement that led to your termination, so it certainly is a relevant and not obscure statute.

Cruz goes on to quote one part of the statute.

Ted Cruz: By the expressed text of the statue it says, quote: ‘Whenever the President finds that the entry of any alien or class of aliens into the United States, would be detrimental to the interest of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for any period he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens, any restrictions he may deem appropriate.” Would you agree that, that is broad statutory authorization?

Without hesitation, Yates replies with the additional provision that “trumps” (yes, she uses that word) Cruz’s statute section — basically out-lawyering him and putting him in his place for all the world to see.

Sally Yates: I would, and I am familiar with that and I’m also familiar with an additional provision of the INA that says: “No person shall receive preference or be discriminated against in issuance of a visa because of race, nationality, or place of birth.” That, I believe was promulgated after the statute that you just quoted. And, that’s been part of the discussion with the courts in respect to the INA, is whether this more specific statute trumps the first one that you just described. But my concern was not an INA concern, here; it rather, was a constitutional concern.

It seems Ted Cruz is still desperately trying to ‘find himself’ after the election — but then, it’s really dark up in Trump’s world.

How refreshing to witness the kind of nonpartisan integrity we saw today from two former government officials who sadly both lost their jobs, directly/indirectly, because of it. But many feel we’ll be hearing more from them again and think today we witnessed what two possible presidential candidates look like. Cheers to Sally Yates and James Clapper for making America proud.