Germany Bans ‘Gay Conversion’ Therapy - Other Nations May Follow

The only advocates of so-called "gay conversion" therapy are far right Christians, principally in America and Russia who use the lie that gays can change their sexual orientation in order to (i) justify their anti-LGBT bigotry, and (ii) argue that LGBT individuals need no non-discrimination protects since being LGBT is a "choice," and their political prostitutes.   Every legitimate - meaning not funded by Christofascist organizations or governments beholden to them - medical and mental health association in the world  oppose the fraudulent therapy and recognize that it is both harmful and simply cannot change what is unchangeable. Sadly, here in America, Trump has promised the moon to Christofascists, including attacking LGBT rights to maintain Christofascist and evangelical support just as his BFF Vladimir Putin has done the same with the Russian Orthodox Church, a denomination that  throughout its history has sided with autocrats and sold out the best interests of the common people in order to maintain its power and privileges.  Indeed, with Putin the Russian Orthodox Church has put power and privilege ahead of truth and knowledge much as it did under the most despotic of the Tsars.  Now, Germany - which has a strong anti-gay Catholic element - is banning conversion therapy for minors.  Other nations may follow suit, handing American Christofascist who have sought to export this vicious lie a major defeat.  A piece in Huffington Post looks at the development.  Here are highlights:

NEW YORK, May 8 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Germany has banned so-called “gay conversion therapy” for minors as a growing number of countries review legislation regarding the controversial practice designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual.

German lawmakers voted on Thursday to prohibit so-called “conversion therapies” for anyone aged under 18, but stopped short of an outright ban, with advertising or offering treatment carrying fines of 30,000 Euros ($32,500) or up to one year jail.

The United States, Canada, Chile, and Mexico are among other countries seeking to outlaw the treatment, based on the belief that being gay or transgender is a mental illness that can be “cured,” according to LGBT+ advocacy group ILGA.

Advocates say bans spare young people pain and suffering at being harassed and humiliated because of their sexuality, an experience which has led to suicide.

Here is the status of the practice in various locations around the world.

- Conversion therapy is outlawed nationwide in Brazil, Ecuador and Malta.

- There is not a federal ban on conversion therapy in the United States, but over 19 U.S. states, including California, Colorado, New York and Washington, prohibit the practice to some degree.

- About 700,000 Americans have been forced to undergo a form of conversion therapy, according to the University of California’s Williams Institute.

- The Australian state of Queensland is considering the country’s first conversion therapy ban, with jail sentences of up to 18 months for doctors and social workers.

- The Canadian federal government introduced new legislation in March this year to criminalize conversion therapy. Conversion therapy has been banned in some Canadian cities, such as Vancouver and Calgary. Ontario was the first Canadian province to ban the practice in 2015.

- Britain and Ireland have drawn up bills to outlaw conversion therapy but they have stalled.

- Brutal and extreme conversion methods including torture, forced internment, electroshock therapy and sexual violence have been documented in Ecuador, South Africa, the Dominican Republic and China.

- A fifth of gay, lesbian and bisexual Britons who have tried to change their sexuality have attempted suicide.

If one wonders why Christofascists are so obsessed with conversion therapy, the answer is actually very simple: if the Bible verses so loved for arguably condemning gays are wrong about homosexuality, then what else in the Bible is false.  Gays by their very existence threaten the house of cards belief system of far right Christians and evangelicals.   These people would rather harm those they do ot even know rather than admit they based their lives on false premises and beliefs.  To me, it is the ultimate form of selfishness.

More Sunday Male Beauty

How To Respond To Friends Posting False Conspiracy Theories?

Since the 2016 presidential election I have observed many otherwise sensible and decent people - many wealthy Republican women - re-posting and sharing some of the most insane and untrue things on Facebook and other social media platforms.  During the 2016 campaign many of these falsehoods ultimately were traced back to Russian sources working to cause hate and division among Americans and to aid Donald Trump.  For some, no conspiracy seems too far fetched.   In some cases I unfriended individuals since I simply did not have the patience to see the endless parade of batshit crazy stuff they posted and in another recent case I stopped following  the individual.  Now, with the coronavirus pandemic there has been an upsurge in false conspiracy theories being backed by groups ranging to far right billionaires to white supremacy groups to foreign disinformation sources.  A piece in The Atlantic looks at how one should deal with friends who continue to post false materials.  The BBC also has a piece on stopping false "news" some online friends should read. The advice in The Atlantic suggests more patience than I can at times muster perhaps since I work in a profession where facts and logic matter.  Here are article excepts:

[P]olitical scientists Joseph E. Uscinski and Adam M. Enders observed that the coronavirus has created an environment dangerously conducive to conspiracy theories. “We have a global pandemic, a crashing economy, social isolation, and restrictive government policies,” they wrote. “All of these can cause feelings of extreme anxiety, powerlessness, and stress, which in turn encourage conspiracy beliefs.”

This past week, a widely discredited video—a 26-minute clip from a slickly produced documentary called Plandemic—circulated online. It promotes a number of harmful and false ideas, including that wearing a protective mask can make people sick and that the novel coronavirus most likely emerged from a laboratory. (Facebook, YouTube, and other companies are trying to scrub it from their platforms.)

If someone you care about sends you a link to this video—or any piece of media that pushes a conspiracy theory about the pandemic—how should you respond? I put that question to experts on conspiracy thinking, public-health risk communication, and psychology, and their responses converged on some basic guidelines.

Uscinski, a professor at the University of Miami and a co-author of American Conspiracy Theories, made an important preliminary distinction: Some people are sharing links to videos like Plandemic because they are curious and uncertain about the claims being made, but others are doing so because they’re already deeply convinced. If you know someone is a “true believer,” to use Uscinski’s term, you probably can’t do much to sway them. You’ll have a better chance of getting through to the curious and the uncertain.

Whatever camp someone falls in, though, the general principles are the same. “It’s always important to respond in a way that doesn’t suggest that the other [person] is foolish, naive, or gullible, as much as you think they may be,” said Joshua Coleman, a psychologist with an expertise in family relationships.

After setting an empathetic tone, Coleman suggested continuing with something like this:
That video might be right, but I've been reading a lot these days that goes counter to that. Do you mind if I send you an article or video about that? It would be good for us to look at both and see what we think.

“First validate” the fears people might have about the pandemic “and then pivot,” Rachael Piltch-Loeb, a fellow at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, recommended. Along those lines, she suggested something like “I’m glad you brought this up. Those are some scary claims in that documentary. I am skeptical, though, because a lot of the things mentioned don't jibe with what I have been reading. Here’s an article that I found to be more helpful at explaining these issues, and I feel more comfortable with the science behind it.” John Banas, a communication professor at the University of Oklahoma, advised avoiding the implication that the other person’s faith in the video is “a personal failing.” You could instead point out the flaws in the current information ecosystem, he said, maybe with a reminder like “During this pandemic, there are people who want to take advantage of people's fears and all of the uncertainty surrounding the situation.” You might also try, when having conversations with other friends and family members, to preempt any curiosity they may have about Plandemic or its ilk by warning them about the existence of COVID-19 conspiracy theories. “People need to be prepared to resist harmful persuasion,” Banas said, “just like our bodies need to be prepared to resist harmful viruses.”

Malignant forces are behind these conspiracy theories.  I wish more "conservatives" would stop taking the bait and allowing themselves to be played for fools to further the agenda of others, be they members of the Trump regime or other bad actors.

Sunday Morning Male Beauty

The Women of Maine vs. Susan Collins

Susan Collins has deserved to be defeated for years as she has claimed to be a moderate Republican but then vote for some of the most reactionary GOP agenda items.  During the Trump occupancy of the White House her double speak has been even more egregious and if current polls are accurate, she may be sent into, in my view, a much needed forced retirement.  In some ways Collins is like moderate Republicans I knew 25 years ago who were at the time indeed moderates who eschewed the most insane elements of the GOP agenda typically linked to Christofascists or extreme anti-tax fanatics.  But over time, despite their protestations to the contrary, they have drunk deeply of the GOP Kool-Aid, including embracing the racism espoused by Donald Trump and the white supremacists that are a key element of Trump's base (I don't reference evangelicals separately because they are increasingly one and the same with the white supremacists).  Now, Collins is facing a backlash from Maine voters who are tired of her self prostitution to Trump and Mitch McConnell and the ugliest elements of today's GOP.  A lengthy piece in Politico Magazine looks at Collins' self-inflicted political difficulties.  The reality is that there are no longer any "moderate Republicans" - they all put party ahead of their constituents, especially average Americans.   Here are article excerpts:

For most of her nearly 24-year Senate career, Collins has been a quiet, head-down, never-miss-a-vote lawmaker known for an unwavering moderate approach that balances ardent fiscal conservatism with a liberal-pleasing reputation for supporting women’s reproductive rights. Then came the polarizing Trump presidency, and suddenly Collins found herself at the consequential center of bitter political battles—on issues ranging from the proposed repeal of Obamacare, which she resisted, to tax cuts and the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, which she supported. She is far from the only lawmaker to have cast deciding votes; however, Collins’ reputation has taken a conspicuously harsh hit. In 2015, after winning reelection with about 70 percent of the vote, she was considered one of America’s most beloved senators. Today, she is the most reviled, derided for her increasingly lockstep party-line votes and for the often belabored manner in which she has justified herself. She’s been lampooned by "Saturday Night Live"; The New Yorker recently satirized her for taking hours of deep reflection before deciding to order whatever Mitch McConnell is having for lunch.

But it is in Maine, where “Bye-Bye Susan” bumper stickers have become common, that the opposition represents an existential threat as she pursues a fifth term. Last year, during the presidential impeachment process, Collins’ refusal to attend several town hall forums begat another bumper sticker asking: “Where’s Susan?” Prior to the state’s shelter-in-place order, protesters gathered almost weekly outside her six state offices, taking issue with everything from her decision to side with President Donald Trump on family separation to her embrace of corporate tax cuts. Residents have made a pastime out of sharing videos of gotcha-conversations with Collins at fundraisers and in airports. In February, Colby College issued a poll showing Collins with a 42 percent approval rating in the state. Among women under the age of 50, her approval is only 25 percent. Her Democratic challenger, Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon, has a slight edge in recent polls, and the Cook Political Report now lists the race as a toss-up.

[I]n a state with the nation’s highest percentage of both female registered voters and women who turn out to vote (about 77 percent and 65 percent, respectively, according to the Center for American Women and Politics), Collins’ plummeting support among women represents an especially dire threat to her reelection prospects. The Kavanaugh vote has energized outside groups such as the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which recently rolled out a six-figure ad campaign denouncing Collins for turning her back on Mainers. But many women voters I spoke to in towns around the state say that while the Kavanaugh vote angered them, they perceive a larger trend—that Collins has abandoned her native Maine in favor of standing with her GOP peers and funding from corporate donors. Understanding the roots of Collins free fall is key to understanding not only her predicament but the mood of the electorate—in Maine and the nation as a whole—heading into November. It’s a simple question with complex answers: Is it Collins who has changed or is it the voters? For years, Maine was the crown of Yankee Republicanism. The state produced socially progressive, pragmatic, secular moderates like Senators Margaret Chase Smith and William Cohen, who also served as secretary of Defense under Democrat Bill Clinton. Collins began her career as a Cohen staffer. When she first ran for office in 1996, she carried that mantle. She was elected on a platform that included strong opposition to the death penalty, and support for reproductive rights and congressional term limits (she vowed she’d serve no more than two terms, then return to Maine and let someone else take her place).
 The state has one of the highest percentages of independent voters—about 38 percent, according to the Secretary of State’s office. And even voters affiliated with a party regularly split tickets in the ballot booth. In 2008, Collins won all 16 counties in the state. That same year, Barack Obama took all but one. Both succeeded by distancing themselves from the policies of George W. Bush. In 2014, Collins was reelected with nearly 70 percent of the vote; two years later, Hillary Clinton picked up three out of four electoral votes, while Trump collected just one.

[S]he also prides herself on voting against her party more than any other senator, in either party.

But some observers of her career say those number don’t really add up—or at least they haven’t in over a decade. They say she’s rarely, if ever, opposed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell since the 2009 stimulus debate (Collins famously stepped across party lines to vote for the resulting recovery act, but only after gutting it of several key provisions, including funding for schools and pandemic flu preparations).
[I]n September 2017 she resisted Trump’s highest legislative priority—overturning Obamacare—by announcing she would not support a repeal plan. Pundits on the far right accused her of being a closet Democrat. But many in her home state cheered the independent-minded senator they’d long known and loved.

That enthusiasm began to erode in December that year, when Collins voted in favor of a tax reform bill that not only included the biggest cut to the corporate tax rate but also included a substantial cut for wealthy Americans. Then, in 2018, came the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, widely viewed as a anti-abortion ally with a history of writing in favor of stricter governmental regulation of abortion . . . . . the pressure on Collins to reject his nomination became intense. Sexual assault survivors flew to Washington to share their stories and opposition to his candidacy.

It also brought unexpected financial challenges. In the weeks leading up to the Kavanaugh confirmation, several nonprofit organizations in the state banded together to launch a crowd-funded campaign to fuel any potential Collins challenger. The campaign stipulated that any money raised would be allocated only if the sitting senator voted in favor of Kavanaugh. They quickly raised almost $4 million, even though Democrats had yet to choose a candidate to oppose her.

On October 5, 2018, Collins took to the Senate floor with a 45-minute speech announcing her support for Kavanaugh and delivering a harsh rebuke of what she called “a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional, it looks more like a caricature of a gutter-level political campaign than a solemn occasion.” This stand aligned her with some of Trump’s most reflexive defenders in the Senate, such as Joni Ernst of Iowa and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, while Murkowski, with whom she had once been allied in opposition to DeVos, remained conspicuously silent about her views of Kavanaugh, choosing to vote “present” rather than in favor of nominee.

But has Collins turned her back on her supporters? Has she actually transformed from a reliable check on Trump, as she seemed to be in the early days of his administration, to a dependable ally who offers token criticism but votes with him on all key issues? Or have voters become so rigid in their opposition to Trump that they can no longer abide her support for anything that might be considered helpful to the leader of her party?

“Every decision she makes seems to align her more closely with the Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell movement,” Shea says. “Here in Maine, that’s become the anvil around her neck.”

Shea also points to figures like congressional voting records maintained by ProPublica. In 2009, Collins voted against her party 31 percent of the time. In 2019, that figure had dropped to around 11 percent. And while some of those votes included opposition to two federal judges otherwise supported by her party, many others were on issues considered insubstantial by congressional watchers.

The majority of the 1,008 respondents to the February Colby College poll felt that Collins was more interested in voting with political affiliations, rather than principles. It’s also a big reason why current Democratic state Speaker of the House Sara Gideon—a relative political newcomer who moved to the state in 2004—is ahead of Collins in both recent polls and fundraising efforts for the first quarter of this year, even though her party has yet to hold its primary.

Gideon has also received an endorsement from the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental advocacy nonprofit that endorsed Collins in her 2008 and 2014 campaigns.  . . . . In 2007 and 2008, Collins scored a perfect 100 percent. A decade later, it was 21 percent, thanks to her vote to confirm David Bernhardt as secretary of the Interior, and her endorsement of anti-environmental bills like one that sought to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

“A member of Congress is expected to make up her mind about what is in the best interest of her constituents. Again and again, during Trump’s presidency, Collins has shown she’s not willing to do that,” Sittenfeld says. “We have an extreme and radical president who has so little interest in what is good for places like Maine. We need a champion who will stand up to him.”

“Maine women and Maine voters have remained consistent,” she told me last week. “Susan Collins is just not the leader she once was, particularly when it comes to reproductive health and rights. In the past, we counted on Senator Collins to put women’s health and well-being ahead of partisanship and political games, but we can no longer do so.”

Hopefully, Collins will be shown the door by voters come November.  Like just about everyone in the GOP, she has sold her soul. 

Supreme Court Needs to Send Message: No One Is Above the Law

Time and time again Donald Trump has claimed to be above the law by virtue of the office he unfortunately holds.  Indeed, Trump seems to believe he is equivalent to an absolute monarch of centuries past who can ignore court rulings and provisions of the U.S. Constitution that make Congress a co-equal branch of the federal government with supervision powers over the executive branch - basic concepts once taught in high school government classes. Trump's claims have now reached the U.S. Supreme Court after the lower federal courts have allowed the State of New York to investigate the Trump Organization and its tax returns for possible tax fraud and other state law crimes.  Trump has consistently ignored the behavior of those who are innocent and instead has consistently acted as if he has something to hide - which he likely does given the reality that his business practices are more akin to that of a crime syndicate than an above board business enterprise.  In a column in the Washington Post George Conway - ever Trump's nemesis - lays out why the Supreme Court should reject Trump's claims of unlimited immunity and underscore that no one, not even the occupant of the White House - is above the law.  Here are column excerpts:

Twenty-six years ago, I published my first op-ed. Entitled “‘No Man in This Country … Is Above the Law,’” it addressed news reports that President Bill Clinton planned to claim an immunity from having to respond to Paula Jones’s sexual harassment suit. “In a case involving his private conduct,” I wrote, “a President should be treated like any private citizen. The rule of law requires no more — and no less.”

The piece led to my ghostwriting briefs for Jones, including a Supreme Court brief two years later. The Supreme Court agreed unanimously that Jones could proceed, and, like the op-ed, quoted from the Founders’ debates about the status of the president: “Far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment.” Which meant that while a president could be impeached for official misconduct, he “is otherwise subject to the laws” — and therefore could be sued — “for his purely private acts.”

I couldn’t have imagined then that another president would challenge that proposition. Then again, I couldn’t have imagined President Donald Trump.

But here we are. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear telephonic arguments in three cases addressing whether Trump can keep his tax and financial information from being disclosed, whether from Congress or criminal prosecutors. In Trump v. Vance, which involves a New York state grand jury investigation, Trump’s lawyers argue that, even when it comes to purely private conduct, the presidency insulates him from the legal process.

The case arises from a criminal investigation into the Trump Organization, and it seems there’s plenty worth examining: whether, as suggested by extensive reporting in this newspaper and other outlets, Trump’s businesses may have dodged taxes. And whether Trump’s hush-money payments, made through his lawyer Michael Cohen to porn star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, violated state law.

The state grand jury subpoenaed the Trump Organization and Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars, seeking tax returns and financial records. Trump sued to block the subpoena to Mazars — on the ground that he’s president. The lower federal courts rejected his pleas, and now he’s in the Supreme Court. Where he will lose — or should.

To say Trump’s argument is frivolous demeans frivolity. Clinton v. Jones dictates the result: The subpoenaed documents have nothing to do with Trump’s presidential duties — zip. That alone does it.

But Trump’s case is even weaker than Clinton’s. At least Clinton was being sued personally. He ultimately had to give evidence himself, which he did (infamously) at a deposition. But because the suit had nothing to do with presidential duties, the Supreme Court said it could proceed.

Here, Trump hasn’t been charged with or sued for anything. He’s not being required to do anything. The subpoenas have been directed at his company and his accountants. They don’t require his time or attention.

Trump’s position stupefies. In essence: Authorities can’t investigate anything touching his personal affairs — including, ahem, payments to pornographic actresses — because he’s president. Think of the logic: Not only does the president enjoy a personal constitutional immunity — his businesses do, too.

[P]residents have given evidence in criminal matters many times — including ones touching them personally. Chief Justice John Marshall ordered President Thomas Jefferson to produce documents in Aaron Burr’s treason case. A unanimous Supreme Court ordered President Richard Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes, and rejected a claim of presidential privilege — in a case in which Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator. Clinton provided grand jury and criminal trial testimony in the Whitewater and Lewinsky investigations — matters in which he was potentially a target.

A short answer is one the court gave in Jones, where Clinton raised the specter of countless private plaintiffs bringing meritless suits: Courts can address vexatious litigation case by case, and if that doesn’t suffice, Congress can legislate a fix.

A more fundamental answer, though, may be found in an amicus curiae brief in the Vance case, a brief submitted by the Protect Democracy Project and joined by me and 36 other conservatives: “The Constitution is concerned with the supremacy of federal law, not the supremacy of federal officials.”

Likewise, the Constitution is concerned with protecting the presidency, not the person who happens to be the president. That’s because no one in this country is above the law. The Supreme Court is now called upon to teach that lesson once again — even if Trump will likely never learn it.

Saturday Morning Male Beauty

The GOP Agenda Fuels An Epidemic of Hardship and Hunger

Food Bank line in Michigan.

The Covid-19 pandemic and the massive unemployment figures - more will be released today after yesterday's numbers brought the number of unemployed to over 30 million - have brought into focus the failed Republican policies which seek to leave the majority of Americans living in grim Dickensian like conditions while the wealthy suck up more and more of the nation's wealth.  Now, in this time of crisis, Congressional Republicans oppose more aid to those suffering.  Meanwhile, the Trump regime is before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to end the Affordable Health Care Act which would leave millions more Americans with no health insurance. Cruelty is the hallmark of today's GOP and when has to wonder when its idiot supporters will stop allowing themselves to be played through racial resentment - the majority of those on welfare and unemployment are white, not black - and, of course pandering to Christian fanaticism.  A column in the New York Times looks at the GOP agenda that ought to have all but the wealthy running screaming from the GOP and its candidates.  Here are excerpts: 

Covid-19 has had a devastating effect on workers. The economy has plunged so quickly that official statistics can’t keep up, but the available data suggest that tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, with more job losses to come and full recovery probably years away.

But Republicans adamantly oppose extending enhanced unemployment benefits — such an extension, says Senator Lindsey Graham, will take place “over our dead bodies.” (Actually, over other people’s dead bodies.)

They apparently want to return to a situation in which most unemployed workers get no benefits at all, and even those collecting unemployment insurance get only a small fraction of their previous income.

Because most working-age Americans receive health insurance through their employers, job losses will cause a huge rise in the number of uninsured. The only mitigating factor is the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, which will allow many though by no means all of the newly uninsured to find alternative coverage.

But the Trump administration is still trying to have the Affordable Care Act ruled unconstitutional; “We want to terminate health care under Obamacare,” declared Donald Trump, even though the administration has never offered a serious alternative. Bear in mind that ending Obamacare would end protection for Americans with pre-existing conditions — and that insurers would probably refuse to cover anyone who had Covid-19.

Finally, the devastation caused by the coronavirus has left many in the world’s wealthiest major nation unable to put sufficient food on the table. Families with children under 12 are especially hard hit: According to one recent survey, 41 percent of these families are already unable to afford enough to eat. Food banks are overwhelmed, with lines sometimes a mile long.

But Republicans are still trying to make food stamps harder to get, and fiercely oppose proposals to temporarily make food aid more generous.

Attempts to restart the economy even though the pandemic is far from controlled will lead to many more deaths, and will probably backfire even in purely economic terms as states are forced to lock down again.

But we’re only now starting to get a sense of the Republican Party’s cruelty toward the economic victims of the coronavirus. In the face of what amounts to a vast natural disaster, you might have expected conservatives to break, at least temporarily, with their traditional opposition to helping fellow citizens in need. But no; they’re as determined as ever to punish the poor and unlucky.

What’s remarkable about this determination is that the usual arguments against helping the needy, which were weak even in normal times, have become completely unsustainable in the face of the pandemic. Yet those arguments, zombielike, just keep shambling on.

For example, you still hear complaints that spending on food stamps and unemployment benefits increases the deficit. Now, Republicans never really cared about budget deficits; they demonstrated their hypocrisy by cheerfully passing a huge tax cut in 2017, and saying nothing as deficits surged.

But what’s even worse, if you ask me, is hearing Republicans complain that food stamps and unemployment benefits reduce the incentive to seek work. There was never serious evidence for this claim, but right now — at a time when workers can’t work, because doing their normal jobs would kill lots of people — I find it hard to understand how anyone can make this argument without gagging.

So what explains the G.O.P.’s extraordinary indifference to the plight of Americans impoverished by this national disaster?

One answer may be that much of America’s right has effectively decided that we should simply go back to business as usual and accept the resulting death toll. Also, conservatives may worry that if we help those in distress, even temporarily, many Americans might decide that a stronger social safety net is a good thing in general. If your political strategy depends on convincing people that government is always the problem, never the solution, you don’t want voters to see the government actually doing good, even in times of dire need.

Whatever the reasons, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Americans suffering from the economic consequences of Covid-19 will get far less help than they should. Having already condemned tens of thousands to unnecessary death, Trump and his allies are in the process of condemning tens of millions to unnecessary hardship.

Friday Morning Male Beauty

Unemployment Set to Rise: The Trump Economy Faces Long-Term Disaster

More horrific unemployment numbers are expected today and tomorrow even as some states begin - perhaps prematurely - to reopen their economies.  Indeed, some expect the unemployment numbers to be the worse since the Great Depression of the 1930's.   Donald Trump, who claimed credit for the robust economy he inherited from Barrack Obama is now faced with owning an economic disaster that may continue for some time as numerous businesses fail to reopen and large corporations refrain from re-hiring all of their employees.  Meanwhile, some major retailers are facing bankruptcy and possible closure.  A piece in CNN looks at the likely chilling unemployment numbers and the impact on Trump's chances on retaining the White House.  Here are excerpts:

The staggering economic pain -- perhaps the worst since the 1930s -- of the American economy in the time of coronavirus will be graphically underscored in two new rounds of unemployment data that are due on Thursday and Friday.

The figures will show Americans who have and will lose their livelihoods as common victims of the most cruel public health crisis in 100 years, along with the sick and the more than 73,000 people who have so far died.

The prospect of a prolonged economic slump will have important implications in politics. It is already threatening to dampen memories of the roaring economy that President Donald Trump was banking on to carry him to a second term. It may also provide an opening to presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden who helped bring the country back from the last economic crisis in the Obama administration.

Every day brings signs that what first looked like temporary job cuts could turn into permanent layoffs. GE, Airbnb and United Airlines this week for instance announced cuts in thousands of positions as business dries up. Discouraging news on the wider penetration of the virus raises the possibility of new spikes in infection that could further complicate the path to a full recovery.
 The emerging reality that the "rocket" like rebound the President predicted is unlikely may be behind Trump's increasingly frantic statements on a emergency he has also claimed will soon be over. . . . For weeks early this year, Trump was in denial and painted the threat from the virus as tiny. The worsening economic news will introduce a new dimension into the November presidential election clash between the President and his Democratic challenger, former Vice President Biden.

Trump is already under heavy pressure over his erratic management of the coronavirus pandemic and his initial assurances that a disease that has now infected more than a million people in this country didn't pose a threat. [P]ersuadable voters will now have two new questions to answer in the election: Is Trump the best candidate to lead the country out of both a prolonged duel with Covid-19 and to put the economy that has been shattered by the pandemic back together? The economic damage is almost inconceivable already and it will be laid bare in two sets of what are likely to be awful jobs numbers on Thursday and Friday.

First up is weekly jobs data on initial unemployment claims -- the measure that has recorded the terrible toll of weekly layoffs that have now topped 30 million people as the economy has gone into suspended animation.

To end the week, the Trump administration is braced for what could be the most disastrous unemployment numbers since the Great Depression. Economists polled by Refinitiv are expecting an unemployment rate at 16%. It's possible that 10 years of jobs gains will have been wiped out in just a couple months.

One of [Trump's] the President's top economic advisers, Kevin Hassett, has been preparing the country for an unemployment rate of up to 20%. That's more than 15 percentage points higher than the 50-year lows in the jobless rate that Trump was celebrating just weeks ago. Trump is now openly campaigning for the country to open up, despite studies that show tens of thousands of people could die in new outbreaks of the disease. . . . But despite widespread demonstrations by conservative groups against governors who are keeping their states shut down, polls suggest that many Americans are wary of resuming normal life.

Nearly two-thirds of those asked in the Monmouth poll were concerned that states will begin lifting restrictions too quickly. And only 33% share Trump's implied view that stopping the economy from going into a deep, lengthy downturn is more important than stopping people getting sick.

The initial economic trauma of the shutdowns is likely to be exacerbated by sobering facts on the state of the pandemic. While cases are dipping in worst-hit regions such as New York and New Jersey, they are actually rising in many states yet to peak.

If new infections do emerge on a wider footprint than the previously worst affected areas on the coasts and in the city, the consequences for the economy could be even more serious.

Service jobs in restaurant, leisure, and travel sectors are unlikely to recover when the public is wary about going out.

And rising infections could take another swipe at the health sector which helped drive recent jobs gains but has been hammered in recent months, with elective surgeries and routine appointments canceled.