Citizen Cartwright

The debate debacle

The presidential debate on Tuesday night was “not America’s finest hour,” says Vox, putting it mildly.

 

In fact, my husband and I agree that most reporting is unable to capture what emanated from the debate stage; it had to be seen to be believed. 

 

“This is a night only [late “Gonzo” journalist] Hunter Thompson could do justice to in reflecting the sheer crazy,” says my husband, John Dineen, a former congressional aide and longtime journalist.

 

Britain’s Guardian newspaper does reflect the surreal scene: "If Trump is re-elected ... this dark, horrifying, unwatchable fever dream will surely be the first line of America’s obituary.”

 

"President Trump did for the Tuesday debate what he has done for the political life of the country in his four years: supply as much rampaging volume, custom-busting obtrusion and outright fiction as necessary to impose his will on the proceedings,” says a New York Times analysis.

 

"No one alive has ever seen a presidential debate like Tuesday night’s unseemly shout fest between President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden — 90 minutes of invective, interruptions and personal insults,” says Dan Balz in The Washington Post.

 

"This was the Trump who lives on Twitter, not someone who occupies the highest office in the land,” Balz says.

 

"President Donald Trump needed to make the first general election debate about his rival, Democrat Joe Biden. Instead, as he so often does, Trump made it about himself,” says an Associated Press analysis.

"The president set the tone from the start for one of the ugliest general election debates in recent memory, badgering Biden and repeatedly interrupting him. Biden alternated between ignoring the president and growing visibly irritated. Moderator Chris Wallace admonished and pleaded with Trump to allow his rival to speak.

"Trump’s aggressive posture may have appealed to his most passionate supporters — a primetime display of the brashness he has brought to the Oval Office. But by the end of the 90-minute contest, it was unclear whether Trump succeeded in making up any ground in trying to expand his coalition or win over persuadable voters, particularly white, educated women and independents who have been turned off in part by the same tone and tenor the president displayed on the debate stage.

 

“Trump brought the chaotic nature of his presidency to the debate stage,” says Alex Conant, a Republican strategist. “He needed to knock Biden off his game, but he may have just reminded independent voters why they’ve turned against him.”

Also in the news

U.N. General Assembly meeting that began with unity concludes with division

 

Senate clears hurdle to avoid government shutdown on 82-6 vote

 

Federal appeals court upholds 6-day extension for counting ballots in Wisconsin, giving Democrats a win

 

Disney to lay off about 28,000 employees, mainly at U.S. theme parks, due to coronavirus hit

 

Early results show Moderna's coronavirus vaccine safe, effective in older people

What scientists have learned about how to prevent and treat the coronavirus

I believe that every problem has a gift. But, as a friend of mine says, sometimes the gift coming out of our problem is for others and not for us. 

 

And a gift left for us by the 1 million people around the world who’ve died of the coronavirus is that scientists now better understand how to prevent and treat the disease — perhaps enabling millions of others to survive, says The Associated Press.

 

Although more deaths are expected this fall because of the recent surge in coronavirus infections in the United States and elsewhere, there also are signs that death rates are declining and that people who get the virus now are doing better than those in the early months of the pandemic.

 

We’re in the “stormy adolescence” phase of learning what treatments work — beyond infancy but not “all grown up either,” says Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health.

 

While cases are rising, death rates seem to be falling, says Dr. Cyrus Shahpar, a former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scientist now at the nonprofit group Resolve to Save Lives.

 

People who've died from the coronavirus, especially those who took part in studies, have helped reveal what drugs do or don't help.

 

Dexamethasone and similar steroids now are known to improve survival when used in hospitalized patients who need extra oxygen — but they might be harmful for less sick patients.

Remdesivir, an antiviral drug, can speed recovery for severely ill patients, cutting four days off the average hospital stay. Two anti-inflammatory drugs, one used in combination with remdesivir, also have been reported to help, although results of those studies haven't been published yet.

The jury is still out on convalescent plasma, which involves using antibody-rich blood from survivors to treat people, says AP. 

 

The value of rigorous, scientific studies to test treatments has become clear, says Dr. Jesse Goodman, a former Food and Drug Administration chief scientist now at Georgetown University. “We certainly see what happens” when treatments are widely adopted without them as hydroxychloroquine was, he says. “That exposed a lot of people to a potentially toxic drug” and delayed the search for effective drugs.

 

Aside from drugs, “the case fatality rate is actually improving over time as physicians get more adept at taking care of these very sick patients,” says Dr. Gary Gibbons, director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

In hospitals, doctors know more now about ways to avoid using breathing machines, such as keeping patients on their stomachs.

“We’ve learned about how to position patients, how to use oxygen, how to manage fluids,” and hospitals have increased their surge capacity and supplies, Dr. Judith Currier, a University of California at Los Angeles physician, said at a recent webinar organized by the American Public Health Association and the National Academy of Medicine.

 

The best way to avoid dying from the coronavirus continues to be to avoid getting it, and experience has shown that the simple measures advocated by public health officials work, says AP.

“Prevention is the most important step right now as we’re waiting for a vaccine and we’re improving treatment,” Goodman says.

Wearing a face mask, washing hands, keeping at least 6 feet apart and disinfecting surfaces “clearly are having a positive effect” on curbing spread, says Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease specialist.

Also in the news

AP analysis: Lebanon risks slipping into chaos after French initiative to form rescue government of specialists falls apart

 

Amnesty International halts its India operations, citing government reprisals

 

Where the world's making concrete progress: Largest global reforestation project exceeds its goal, and more positive news

 

House Democrats unveil new $2.2 trillion proposal for coronavirus aid

Leading Democrats and Republicans on House Transportation Committee propose tighter rules for new airplanes

 

Federal government to ship millions of rapid coronavirus tests to states in bid to reopen K-12 schools

Commerce Secretary Ross says 2020 census will end Oct. 5 despite court order allowing count until end of October

 

Viewers’ guide to Tuesday night’s first presidential debate

 

Ethics experts see national security concern in Trump’s personal debt

 

Vox’s explainer of its new Netflix series 'Whose Vote Counts’

Amy Coney Barrett: From law professor to Supreme Court in 4 years

Barrett’s speedy elevation from little-known Indiana law professor to the nation’s highest court is set to drive the court to the right for a generation or longer. It's the fulfillment of a decades-long effort by conservatives to remake the federal bench that kicked into high gear after President Trump was elected, says The Associated Press.

 

Even before Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, Trump was campaigning for reelection on his record of confirming more than 200 federal judges during his first term, fulfilling a generational aim of conservative legal activists.

“Today’s nomination is the capstone of a more than four-year process where the president seized upon the issue, stayed focused, and called attention to a small bench of very talented people who he could put on the Supreme Court,” says Leonard Leo of the conservative Federalist Society.

 

Within weeks of Trump’s victory in 2016, incoming White House counsel Don McGahn, Leo and several other attorneys started drawing up lists of potential nominees for federal judicial vacancies. 

 

Barrett, a former clerk to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, was then a law professor at Notre Dame who wasn't well known in political circles in Indiana and was almost unheard of nationally. But she found herself on the list of potential picks for the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in large part thanks to McGahn, a fellow Notre Dame alum. McGahn knew Barrett from conservative legal circles, like Leo’s influential Federalist Society, and talked her up to the Indiana congressional delegation.

 

Barrett faced a bruising nomination battle for the appellate seat in 2017 that caught the attention of Trump, who was impressed with her ability to keep her cool under critical questioning by Democratic  senators, says AP.

 

On the 7th Circuit, Barrett has weighted in on cases involving hot-button issues including abortion, gun rights, immigration and campus sexual assault.

 

Although Barrett hasn't ruled directly on abortion as a judge, she's cast votes signaling opposition to rulings that struck down abortion-related restrictions, says Reuters. Abortion rights groups have expressed concern that Barrett could help overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

 

Barrett indicated support for expansive gun rights in a 2019 opinion dissenting from a 7th Circuit ruling on gun ownership by people convicted of serious crimes, Reuters says.

 

And Barrett wrote a 2019 ruling on behalf of a unanimous three-judge 7th Circuit panel making it easier for male college students accused of sexual misconduct to challenge the way campus tribunals handle their cases.

 

In June, Barrett said in a dissenting opinion she would have let one of Trump’s hardline immigration policies go forward in Illinois.

 

While Trump said he had a list of five finalists for the Supreme Court seat, he never interviewed anyone else for the job.

 

Democrats appear to be powerless to stop Barrett’s confirmation in the GOP-controlled Senate, but they're seeking to use the process to weaken Trump’s reelection chances.

And Trump sees his outsize role in reshaping the court as an insurance policy in a close election, says AP.

 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on Sunday detailed on Fox News the timeline for his committee’s action on Barrett’s nomination. Hearings are to begin Oct. 12 and the nomination is to be reported out of committee on Oct. 22.

 

"Then it will be up to Sen. [Mitch] McConnell as to what to do with the nomination once it comes out of committee,” Graham said.

Barrett, age 48, and her husband, Jesse Barrett, a former federal prosecutor, have seven children, all under 20, including two adopted from Haiti and a young son with Down syndrome. Barrett would be the only justice on the current court not to have received her law degree from Harvard or Yale.

 

Here is the text of Barrett’s remarks when President Trump announced her nomination Saturday, as transcribed by The New York Times.

Also in the news

Trump approves final plan to import prescription drugs from Canada ‘for a fraction of the price’

 

Emails show how pesticide industry influenced U.S. position on international guidelines to combat drug resistance

FDA requires stronger warning label for Xanax, similar benzodiazepine drugs that can be addictive, interact with other medications

 

Trump administration releases plan to open Alaska’s Tongass National Forest to logging

Judge blocks Trump administration's TikTok app store ban

 

Possibility of ransomware attacks takes on new urgency in runup to election

 

How Trump and Biden are preparing for their first debate Tuesday night

 

NYTimes: Long-concealed records show Trump’s chronic losses, years of tax avoidance

 

Democratic phone canvasser: 'I dial undecided voters in Michigan, where facts are no match for feelings'

 

Immune system clues to why coronavirus is easier on kids

 

Hair loss can be another consequence of coronavirus pandemic

Note to readers — National Book Festival 2020 is online this weekend!

I said I wouldn’t be posting again until Monday, Sept. 28 — but I don’t want you to miss the Library of Congress’ National Book Festival. It’s one of my favorite events in Washington and usually involves more than 100 authors and 100,000 attendees at the D.C. Convention Center. 

 

But since it’s being held online rather than in person this year, we all can go, no matter where we live! 

 

The festival begins tomorrow, Friday, Sept. 25, and runs through Sunday, Sept. 27.

 

A major focus of the book festival this year is “Democracy in the 21st Century.”

 

"From the changing nature of the American political arena to the 'Arab Spring' to Russia under Vladimir Putin – to name a few – the landscape of democracy has proven to be uncertain terrain,” says the National Book Festival blog.

 

This topic will feature 21 authors in 13 programs, ranging from books for kids and books for readers of current politics and books for history fans who want to examine how we got where we are, the blog says.

 

"As always, there are big names in history – Eric Foner, Heather Cox Richardson, Jared Diamond and David Rubenstein – and in journalism – Peter Baker and Susan Glasser, Barton Gellman and George Packer. There’s also a delightful set of authors writing for child and teen audiences, including Sophie Blackall, Don Tate and Veronica Chambers. You can talk with authors via interactive chats, but don’t worry if you miss any — the Q&A sessions will be available at the close of the festival, too.

 

“Are we, worldwide, drifting away from a spoken allegiance to democracy?” asks Marie Arana, the Library’s literary director. “Why are governments becoming more authoritarian, and why do citizens sometimes like that they’re becoming more authoritarian? These authors are really getting down to the nitty-gritty of what it takes to uphold a democracy.”

Note to readers

As you may recall, I tutor kids with and without learning differences. I’m attending an online professional development conference that will prevent me from publishing Citizen Cartwright on Friday. Have a good weekend, and I’ll see you on Monday, Sept. 28!

How nursing homes are getting rid of unprofitable Medicaid patients

Across the United States, nursing homes are seeking to evict unprofitable patients — mainly those who are poor and require extra care — and using minor outbursts to justify sending them to emergency rooms or psychiatric hospitals. After the hospitals discharge the patients, often in a matter of hours, the nursing homes refuse them re-entry, according to court filings, government-funded watchdogs in 16  states, and more than 60 lawyers, nursing home employees, and doctors, reports The New York Times.

 

“Even before the pandemic, there was tremendous pressure to get rid of Medicaid patients, especially those that need high levels of staffing,” says Mike Wasserman, a former chief executive of Rockport Healthcare Services, which manages California’s largest chain of for-profit nursing homes.

 

About 70 percent of U.S. nursing homes are for profit. The most lucrative patients are those on short-term rehabilitation stays paid for by private insurers or Medicare, the federal program that insures seniors and people with disabilities. Poor people on longer-term stays are covered by Medicaid, which reimburses nursing homes at a far lower rate than Medicare.

 

The financial incentive to have more Medicare or privately insured patients, and fewer patients on Medicaid, becomes more pronounced when the Medicaid patients have illnesses, like dementia, that require extra care from staff, says the Times.

 

Nursing homes have faced acute staff shortages as employees have become sick or afraid to go to work because of the coronavirus. Workers say they've faced increased pressure from their employers during the pandemic to get rid of the most expensive, least lucrative patients.

 

And invoking psychiatric problems is a popular tool, says the Times. Nursing homes routinely admit patients with dementia, Alzheimer’s or similar conditions, and angry outbursts are common.

 

Federal law requires nursing homes to follow strict guidelines when they intend to evict somebody: They have to give 30 days’ notice and come up with a plan to transfer the resident to a facility that can meet his or her needs. If a resident goes to a hospital, the facility is required to hold the bed for a week.

But nursing homes frequently flout these rules, according to employees and state-funded ombudsmen who help to oversee the industry. The Times reported in July that nursing homes were evicting an increasing number of low-income — and therefore low-profitability — residents into homeless shelters and run-down motels, apparently in violation of federal law.

 

A nursing home can get an additional $1,000 a day by getting rid of someone on Medicaid and replacing them with someone on Medicare, says attorney Matthew Borden.

Also in the news

AP investigation: Palm oil labor abuses linked to world’s top brands and banks

World leaders at U.N. General Assembly’s virtual meeting criticize haphazard response to coronavirus pandemic

 

Democrats call for declassifying threats to election security after briefing by Trump officials

 

U.S. experts vow at Senate hearing there will be ‘no cutting corners’ as coronavirus vaccine tests expand

FiveThirtyEight: How to know when you can trust a coronavirus vaccine

 

Trump nominates former Nunes aide Allen Souza to serve as intelligence community inspector general

 

Dismay over decision not to charge Kentucky police officers for Breonna Taylor’s death spills into America’s streets

 

AP: In Breonna Taylor case, limits of law overcome calls for justice

 

California governor signs executive order to ban sale of new gasoline-powered passenger vehicles starting in 2035