Monday, April 13, 2020

RSN: James Risen | Under Cover of Covid-19, Donald Trump Ramps Up His War on Truth-Tellers





Reader Supported News
13 April 20



Nobody likes fund-raising. We understand. However it makes all the difference in the world if we have a budget to work with. The process is quick and easy, just hit the link and select your payment option. To our active donors a big thanks.

Thanks in advance.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News







If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611



Reader Supported News
12 April 20

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News





James Risen | Under Cover of Covid-19, Donald Trump Ramps Up His War on Truth-Tellers
Michael Atkinson, the then-inspector general for the intelligence community, departs a closed-door hearing before the House Intelligence Committee in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 4, 2019. (photo: Anna Moneymaker/NYT)
James Risen, The Intercept
Risen writes: "Now, in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic that has killed thousands of Americans, it's more clear than ever that the officials who stayed in public service to try to curb Trump's worst abuses are becoming his most numerous victims."

EXCERPT:
Trump views anyone who tells the truth as an enemy who must be crushed. Since the onset of the pandemic, he has often assaulted the truth in the middle of White House press briefings. That the docile White House press corps has repeatedly let it happen with barely a murmur encourages Trump to keep it up.
In the middle of a press briefing on Sunday, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the government’s top infectious disease expert, tried to answer a question about whether an anti-malaria drug, hydroxychloroquine, could be an effective treatment for Covid-19. Trump has continuously touted the drug in public despite the fact that there is no conclusive proof of its usefulness and plenty of evidence of its harmful side effects. His heedless quackery threatens to kill thousands.
The last thing Trump wanted was for Fauci to tell the truth while standing next to him in front of the press, so Trump blocked him from answering the question and attacked reporters for asking about it. “You don’t have to ask the question again,” Trump told a reporter, while complaining that Fauci had already talked about the anti-malarial drug “15 times.”
Fauci has tried hard over the last few weeks to avoid directly contradicting Trump, particularly in official press briefings. He has instead used alternative media interviews — including a popular online chat with NBA star Stephen Curry — to try to get the truth out.
Yet the fact that Fauci must stand by and let Trump spout dangerous misinformation shows how Trump’s purges have intimidated the remaining professionals inside the government.
Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been almost completely sidelined from press briefings. Stat, a health and medicine news organization, noted that the CDC hasn’t given its own press briefing since March 9, after Trump and the White House took control of public messaging about the pandemic. “CDC experts, who held regular briefings to update the public about previous health threats such as the H1N1 flu pandemic and the Zika outbreak, have been silenced,” Stat reported.
Instead, CDC Director Robert Redfield, a conservative Christian appointed to his position in 2018, has mainly been giving interviews to local radio stations, in which he stresses the value of social distancing while avoiding directly contradicting Trump.
Trump has lied and spouted propaganda and conspiracy theories ever since he took office. In the last few days, he has intensified his war against the truth and anyone who speaks it. With Covid-19, we are witnessing the results.





Employees at a San Diego retirement community hold a daily pep rally to boost the spirits of quarantined residents. (photo: Gregory Bull/AP)
Employees at a San Diego retirement community hold a daily pep rally to boost the spirits of quarantined residents. (photo: Gregory Bull/AP)


A Plan to Defeat Coronavirus Finally Emerges, but It's Not From the White House
Lena H. Sun, William Wan and Yasmeen Abutaleb, The Washington Post
Excerpt: "A national plan to fight the coronavirus pandemic in the United States and return Americans to jobs and classrooms is emerging - but not from the White House."
READ MORE


Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, listens as Trump speaks at a briefing on March 27. (photo: Yuri Gripas/Bloomberg/Getty Images)
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, listens as Trump speaks at a briefing on March 27. (photo: Yuri Gripas/Bloomberg/Getty Images)


Fauci: US Could Have 'Saved Lives' if Social-Distancing Restrictions Were Enforced Earlier
Justin Wise, The Hill
Wise writes: "Anthony Fauci, the U.S. government's top infectious disease expert, said Sunday that the U.S. would have saved lives had the country enforced firm social-distancing requirements as early as February, but noted that those recommendations were met with pushback at the time."
READ MORE


A supporter of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange posts a sign on the Woolwich Crown Court fence, ahead of a hearing to decide whether Assange should be extradited to the United States, in London, Britain February 25, 2020. (photo: Henry Nicholls/Reuters)
A supporter of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange posts a sign on the Woolwich Crown Court fence, ahead of a hearing to decide whether Assange should be extradited to the United States, in London, Britain February 25, 2020. (photo: Henry Nicholls/Reuters)



Assange Fathered Two Children While Holed Up in Embassy, Lawyer Says
Peter Graff, Reuters
Graff writes: "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange fathered two children with a lawyer who was representing him while he was holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London fighting extradition, the lawyer told a British newspaper on Sunday."
READ MORE


A USPS mail carrier wearing a mask delivers mail in Flushing, New York, on April 11. (photo: John Nacion/NurPhoto/Getty Images)
A USPS mail carrier wearing a mask delivers mail in Flushing, New York, on April 11. (photo: John Nacion/NurPhoto/Getty Images)


The Debate Over a Post Office Bailout, Explained
Matthew Yglesias, Vox
Yglesias writes: "The US Postal Service, like many American businesses, is suffering from sharply declining demand due to the coronavirus crisis: Last week, members of Congress were informed that it will 'run out of cash' in September without federal assistance."

Republicans in Congress, meanwhile, remain narrowly focused on putting more money into the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses — and are opposed to broadening the scope of what will be considered in the next bill.
But the Trump administration also appears to be specifically hostile to the idea of a Postal Service bailout. Its distaste for a postal bailout merges ideological conservatives’ generic preference for postal privatization with the president’s specific hangup about the idea that USPS is giving Amazon a sweetheart deal on shipping.
In general, there are a lot of complexities to the long-term postal policy picture in the United States, but the immediate crisis is actually pretty simple: Mail volumes are plunging, taking USPS revenue down with them. And unless something is done relatively quickly to make up for those lost revenues, it’s hard to see how significant layoffs and service reductions can be avoided.
The Postal Service’s long-term problem
The Postal Service has been organized in several different ways across American history, but its modern paradigm, dating from the 1970s, dictates that the USPS is supposed to be a self-funded, independently operating public sector entity.
And at the core of that entity is a two-sided bargain. On the one hand, the Postal Service gets a monopoly on the provision of daily mail services. On the other hand, the Postal Service undertakes a series of public service obligations that a private company would not provide — most notably daily mail delivery and flat postage rates regardless of where you live.
But the volume of first class mail — the source of the lion’s share of USPS revenue and the cornerstone of both its monopoly and its universal service obligations — peaked in 2001 at 104 billion pieces of mail. Decline has been fairly steady since then, falling to just 55 billion pieces in 2019. The cost of meeting USPS’ basic service obligations, by contrast, has essentially remained steady, creating an obvious financial problem.
There’s no reason to think the decline of paper mail will reverse at any point in the future, so one possible response would be to cut costs by closing post offices, canceling Saturday delivery, and laying off workers. Congress has generally opposed that, pushing the postal service to instead find new sources of revenue such as its parcel delivery business in which it competes with UPS, Federal Express, and other private companies.
A few other solutions have been floated, but none have taken hold. For instance, many people on the left would like to see laws changed to allow USPS to begin offering banking services to both increase revenue and create a public option that would compete with private banks. On the right, the general preference is to privatize postal services (which is what’s largely happened in Europe) and end the mix of special monopolies and special service obligations that currently governs postage.
Back in 2006, a lame duck Republican Congress turned up the pressure on privatization by forcing the Postal Service to prefund decades of pension and retiree health costs through investments in low-yield government bonds. That onerous obligation made USPS technically insolvent before coronavirus hit. But rather than achieving its apparent intended result of spurring privatization, in practice it mostly served to give privatization opponents something to complain about rather than addressing the underlying decline in USPS’ business model. Along the way, however, USPS did find a promising new line of business as a contractor delivering Amazon packages.
Donald Trump really hates Amazon
In the fall of 2016, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos accused Donald Trump of “eroding our democracy.”
And while some major tech CEOs, like Apple’s Tim Cook, have gone out of their way to kiss up to Trump since he became president, Bezos largely hasn’t. Instead, Amazon’s top spokesperson is Jay Carney — who served as White House press secretary under President Barack Obama — and who has occasionally offered harsh criticisms of the Trump administration on a wide range of grounds.
Bezos also owns the Washington Post, and Trump has made no secret of his desire to use the power of the government to punish Amazon financially unless the Post changes its coverage of him. Facebook seems to have paid attention to this message and deliberately altered its editorial practices in order to try to ensure more favorable regulatory treatment from the Trump administration. The Post, which is run by professional journalists with ethics, has refused to do the same. Adding to the tension between the parties is the fact there’s currently litigation underway exploring allegations that Trump’s highly irregular cancellation of a major military contract with Amazon was motivated by partisan payback.
New York Magazine’s Josh Barro has dug into the substance of the parcel pricing controversy and finds that Trump’s contention that the Postal Service could improve its financial situation by doubling what it charges Amazon is false. The key issue is that because of USPS’ universal service obligations, it can’t drastically reduce its real estate footprint or the number of trucks it sends driving around the country. The reason it gives Amazon good rates is that the facilities it’s using would otherwise be half-empty. Raising prices without making any other operational changes could lead to Amazon looking elsewhere for delivery services, which would leave the post office in even more desperate financial circumstances.
What’s true, however, is that if USPS were privatized and its special obligations went away, then it would be possible — and profit-maximizing — for the hypothetical future USPS to charge Amazon higher rates. In other words, the longstanding conservative goal of postal privatization aligns well with Trump’s personal agenda of punishing the Washington Post. But it’s not true that soaking Amazon would, per se, provide the Postal Service with a way out of its financial problems.
Democrats want to save the Postal Service
USPS consistently rates as the most popular government agency. It employs a lot of unionized workers, and its costliest business practices help out rural communities who are given disproportionate weight in the political process.
Therefore Democrats’ inclination for a while now has been to say that the federal government should either just directly subsidize the Postal Service or else help them out by changing the rules to let USPS get into more lines of business like banking.
The sharp crisis induced by coronavirus is compelling USPS to ask openly for government support, with House Democrats describing a proposal for $25 billion in operating subsidies, $25 billion in capital grants for modernization, and $25 billion in guaranteed loans from the Treasury.
Trump, by contrast, has emphasized his incorrect ideas about Amazon as a solution that would somehow simultaneously address both the short-term and long-term issues.
“They have to raise the prices to these companies that walk in and drop thousands of packages on the floor of the post office and say, ‘Deliver it,’” he said at a press conference last week. “And if they’d raise the prices by actually a lot, then you’d find out that the post office could make money or break even. But they don’t do that. And I’m trying to figure out why.”
None of that is true, and whether or not Amazon gets charged higher prices, the agency is going to go bust because people aren’t sending enough mail.
Of all the things the federal government could conceivably spend money on, subsidizing six-days-a-week delivery of paper mail has never struck me personally as a particularly compelling value proposition. But given USPS’ popularity with the public, it’s also not really clear why spending money on this would be a big problem other than a principled opposition to having the government do anything at all.
In the immediate circumstances of a collapsing national economy that coincides with a census, a huge surge in people’s dependence on delivery services, and the potential need to convert the entire fall election to vote-by-mail, laying off tons of postal workers seems obviously unhelpful. But unless Congress can reach some sort of deal, that’s the situation they’ll be facing by late summer.



New Zealand, led by Jacinda Ardern, is a world leader in combating the virus. (photo: Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)
New Zealand, led by Jacinda Ardern, is a world leader in combating the virus. (photo: Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)


The Secret Weapon in the Fight Against Coronavirus: Women
Arwa Mahdawi, Guardian UK
Mahdawi writes: "What do Germany, Taiwan and New Zealand have in common? Well, they've all got female leaders and they're all doing an exceptional job in their response to the coronavirus crisis."

EXCERPT:
What is true, however, is that women generally have to be better in order to become leaders; we are held to far higher standards than men. Women are rarely able to fail up in the way men can; you have to be twice as good as a man in order to be taken half as seriously. You have to work twice as hard. With a few notable exceptions (*cough* Ivanka Trump *cough*), you’ve got to be overqualified for a top job.
A surplus of qualifications isn’t exactly a problem Donald Trump has. America’s response to the coronavirus crisis is arguably the worst in the world – although Britain also gets an honourable mention here. Instead of expertise, the Trump administration has led with ego. While thousands of Americans die, Trump tweets about his TV ratings. Instead of cooperating, Trump is lashing out at the press and state leaders. It’s hard to imagine Hillary Clinton responding to a crisis in this way without being immediately impeached. Which raises the question: are some men simply too emotional to be leaders?



A worker sprays disinfectant near the tiger cages at Alipore Zoological Garden in Kolkata. (photo: Getty Images)
A worker sprays disinfectant near the tiger cages at Alipore Zoological Garden in Kolkata. (photo: Getty Images)


To Prevent the Next Pandemic, Leave Animals Alone
Dharna Noor, Gizmodo
Noor writes: "We don't know exactly how the tiger contracted the coronavirus, but we do know that it's zoonotic disease, meaning it's caused by a bacteria, parasite, or in this case, a virus that spreads from animals to humans."


ver the weekend, a tiger at the Bronx zoo tested positive for covid-19. The weird occurrence raised questions about the zoonotic transmission of covid-19. Did Joe Exotic have anything to do with this? (Probably not). Did the tiger contract the virus from human contact? Can the tiger infect humans? How can we limit the spread of viruses between people to animals?
 New research has found that to limit “virus spillover” of these illnesses, we should stop messing with animals’ natural habitats.
In a paper published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B on Tuesday, researchers found that the risk for viruses to spread to humans from animals increases when we exploit wildlife through land use practices, agriculture, and hunting.
“Spillover of viruses from animals is a direct result of our actions involving wildlife and their habitat,” lead author Christine Kreuder Johnson, project director of USAID PREDICT and director of the EpiCenter for Disease Dynamics at the University of California’s One Health Institute, said in a statement. “The consequence is they’re sharing their viruses with us.”
Removing animals from their natural habitats can stress them out, which increases the risk that those creatures will spread diseases. And when humans spend time around those stressed animals—whether that’s on a farm or out hunting—we risk exposure to high viral loads.
The authors identified 142 cases of zoonotic viruses spreading to people. Then, using the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species, they teased out patterns in the way those species have been affected by human action. The study traced half of the new diseases that animals transmitted to humans after 1940 to hunting, trade, habitat degradation.
The researchers found that domesticated mammals—including livestock like cows and pigs as well as pets like cats and dogs—host the highest number of viruses that can be shared with people. In fact, these domestic species carry eight times more of these viruses than wild mammal species. Wild animals that have adapted well to human civilization and most often live in urban centers, such as rodents, bats, and primates, also often carried zoonotic diseases.
The study also found that among threatened and endangered species, zoonotic viruses were far more common among those whose habitats human had directly destroyed or degraded. Wildlife whose populations declined due to hunting, trade, and human occupation were more than twice as likely to carry zoonotic viruses compared to those threatened for other reasons, such as the changing climate.
That in turn increased the likelihood of spillover into humans. That’s troubling, because species with declining populations are also more likely to be directly monitored by humans trying to bring about their population recovery, which also puts them into greater contact with people.
“The study by Christine Kreuder Johnson and colleagues highlights the importance of rethinking our relationship with wild animals and wild places and most importantly the contact areas between them,” Christian Walzer, executive director of the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Wildlife Health Programs, told Earther. “The study provides new evidence on how the conservation of wild species and their respective environments can create global health wins and support the mitigation of future epidemics and pandemics.”













We Were Warned





We Were Warned



We were warned in 2012, when the Rand Corporation surveyed the international threats arrayed against the United States and concluded that only pandemics posed an existential danger, in that they were “capable of destroying America’s way of life.”
We were warned in 2015, when Ezra Klein of Vox, after speaking with Bill Gates about his algorithmic model for how a new strain of flu could spread rapidly in today’s globalized world, wrote that “a pandemic disease is the most predictable catastrophe in the history of the human race, if only because it has happened to the human race so many, many times before.” If there was anything humanity could be certain that it needed to prepare for to prevent the deaths of a lot of people in little time, it was this.
We were warned in 2017, a week before inauguration day, when Lisa Monaco, Barack Obama’s outgoing homeland-security adviser, gathered with Donald Trump’s incoming national-security officials and conducted an exercise modeled on the administration’s experiences with outbreaks of swine flu, Ebola, and Zika. The simulation explored how the U.S. government should respond to a flu pandemic that halts international travel, upends global supply chains, tanks the stock market, and burdens health-care systems—all with a vaccine many months from materializing. “The nightmare scenario for us, and frankly to any public-health expert that you would talk to, has always been a new strain of flu or a respiratory illness because of how much easier it is to spread” relative to other pandemic diseases that aren’t airborne, Monaco told me.

We were warned in 2018, on the 100th anniversary of the flu pandemic of 1918, which killed 50 to 100 million people around the world. My colleague Ed Yong served notice that the “next plague” was coming, with influenza the most dangerous possibility, even as the United States succumbed to “forgetfulness and shortsightedness.” Luciana Borio, then the director for medical and biodefense preparedness at the National Security Council, told a symposium that “the threat of pandemic flu is our number-one health security concern.” Serving under a president who’d come to office on the pledge to wall off the United States, she noted that such a threat could not “be stopped at the border.” The very next day, news broke that National Security Adviser John Bolton had shuttered the NSC’s unit for preparing and responding to pandemics, of which Borio was a part. The White House official in charge of spearheading such a response to infectious threats departed as well and was not replaced.

Read: A glimpse of the coronavirus’s possible legacy


We were warned in 2018 and 2019, when the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security gathered public-health experts, business leaders, and U.S. government officials for simulations of the devastating humanitarian, political, social, and economic consequences of fictional novel coronaviruses that left tens of millions dead around the world. Participants exited the events thinking, “‘Oh my god, we really need to get working on this,’” Eric Toner, who helped run the exercises, told me. Two months after the second simulation, a novel coronavirus (albeit with what appears to be a substantially lower lethality rate than the fictional viruses in the scenarios at Johns Hopkins) emerged in China.
We were warned in 2019 of the grave hazards of a new influenza pandemic by the U.S. intelligence community in its annual “worldwide threat assessment.” They had also cautioned us in 2018. And in 2017. And in 2016. And in 2015. And in 2014. And in 2013, when intelligence officials pleaded, “This is not a hypothetical threat. History is replete with examples of pathogens sweeping populations that lack immunity, causing political and economic upheaval.” (The 2020 worldwide threat assessment, which reportedly yet again flagged America’s vulnerability to a flu pandemic, has been postponed without explanation.)
When the National Commission on the COVID-19 response materializes, it will differ from the 9/11 Commission in that it will conclude that “the system was blinking red” not just in the inner sanctum of the U.S. intelligence community but out in the open, as well. For years. Within government and outside government. And that, despite all that, the U.S. government was not sufficiently prepared when the boogeyman, in this case the virus SARS-CoV-2, finally came calling. President Trump has referred to the coronavirus outbreak as “an unforeseen problem,” as “something that nobody expected,” and as a crisis that “came out of nowhere.” It is demonstrably none of the above.

The systemic failure stems in part from the fact that in recent decades successive administrations have not treated pandemic preparedness with the degree of seriousness they reserved for addressing other top security threats—from, say, terrorists or adversarial nations. The pattern repeats itself: Presidents rush to prioritize health security and lavish money on it after crisis strikes, then scale back resources and succumb to complacency once it subsides.
Pandemics don’t occur with the frequency of other national-security incidents such as terrorist attacks and therefore often seem “like a remote possibility,” Toner said, especially for elected officials thinking in the time horizon of their term in office.
“Most people find thinking about a severe pandemic just too hard,” he added. “I’ve fought this battle my whole career: They say … ‘I can’t deal with a small-scale epidemic. How can you expect me to deal with something on the scale of 1918?’
“Responding to a catastrophic pandemic, as I think we will all learn in the coming weeks, requires really changing the way that we do a lot of things. It’s probably more analogous to what we did during World War II than anything else,” he continued. “It requires an all-of-society response, and I think until the crisis happens policy makers don’t know how to do that.”
Funding for pandemic preparedness has long lagged behind other homeland-security priorities. The U.S. government, for example, spends at least $100 billion a year on counterterrorism efforts versus $1 billion on pandemic and emerging-infectious-disease programs, according to one calculation in 2016. This despite the fact that the new coronavirus threatens to kill vastly more Americans than terrorism ever has.
And the Trump administration has gone further—not only underfunding these efforts but also proposing steep spending cuts year after year to institutions, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that are tasked with handling outbreaks. Congress has resisted these efforts in the bills Trump has ultimately signed, but the president’s requests have nevertheless spoken to his priorities. His budget proposal for fiscal year 2021, released in February when the coronavirus outbreak had already reached the United States, called for the CDC’s overall funding to be slashed by hundreds of millions of dollars. The administration did suggest more resources for certain subsets of the CDC’s work relevant to the current crisis. Each of those increases, however, is less than the Trump administration devoted in its 2021 budget proposal to counter Chinese and Russian propaganda and disinformation, and a small fraction of the additional $459 million the administration wished to pour into offensive hypersonic weapons. (But what’s $459 million when you’re spending billions on them already?)

Read: How you should get food during the pandemic 

The Trump administration has also downplayed global health threats through structural changes within the White House’s national-security architecture. It downgraded the role of homeland security adviser so that it didn’t report directly to the president after Monaco’s successor, Tom Bossert, was dismissed in 2018. (Bossert was an advocate of developing a biodefense strategy for addressing biological attacks and pandemic diseases like influenza.) That same year, it closed a pandemic-response unit that the Obama administration had created after the Ebola outbreak, folding some of the remnants into other NSC directorates. Tim Morrison, who led the resulting counterproliferation and biodefense office before leaving the administration in 2019, has argued that the shake-up was an effort to reduce “bloat” at the NSC. But the consequences were serious: When the novel coronavirus first broke out, there were no senior administration officials focused solely on combatting such threats and coordinating global health security policy across agencies.
Monaco said that the Trump administration and its predecessors did not do enough to fund America’s public-health infrastructure, which in the coming weeks is at risk of being “overwhelmed by the onslaught” of cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.
“I’m not saying that having that structure in place means that the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened or wouldn’t have arrived here,” Monaco clarified. But “back in December, when we first saw [the coronavirus emerge], who was asking, ‘Do we have sufficient tests?’ Who was asking, ‘Do we have sufficient personal protective equipment if this gets here and gets here at scale?’ Who was asking, ‘What is our public-health capacity, and let’s model this out. If this really spreads, how many ICU beds are we going to need?’ Who’s developing that list of questions and getting them answered? That’s got to happen at the White House to really bring all of the government to bear.”
When I spoke with Toner last Thursday (what admittedly seems like an eternity ago at the pace of this crisis), he said that “it’s clear that the administration through its actions did not prioritize public-health preparedness until last week or so,” and that this is not the kind of crisis that can be prepared for in a week—not even the couple months that Trump administration officials claim they lost because China wasn’t initially forthcoming about the virus. Pandemics move at lightning speed, but pandemic preparedness is measured in years.
When the virus was first detected in China, Toner told me, a more prepared U.S. government would have immediately begun bracing for the “inevitable arrival of the disease” by bolstering hospitals and helping state and local governments implement the social-distancing and other mitigation measures they are now scrambling to put in place. “It would have been much easier to do those things with more time than we have now,” he explained.
The irony is that this is all occurring in a country, the United States, that for decades “has been a leader in pandemic preparedness,” Toner said. “We were better prepared than others,” he acknowledged, “but no one, no country, is prepared for what we’re seeing now.”
Just as the spread of the coronavirus is a function of human nature, so too is humanity’s capacity to be caught unprepared for it—despite warning after warning after warning that we would live to regret it.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.





LINK








How The Downballot reports on and analyzes polls

                                                                                                            LOTS OF POSTS IGNORED BY BLOGGER...