Disagreement Over Mask Types Strains Friendship

Helen is an old and dear friend and I urged her since March to not leave her house without this kind of a of a suit up

-by Helen Klein

This started over the weekend. On Saturday, I was on the phone with Howie and the topic of masks came up. As DWT readers are aware, Howie has been following the details of the corona virus since the very beginning and he is the most knowledgeable person I know in this regard; a semi expert, one might say. He asked me whether I had purchased the mask he has been recommending since the beginning of the pandemic – an N99 mask such as those from Base Camp. Embarrassed, I said no. Some of our other college friends had followed through right away and when he asked why I had not, I could only shrug. Needless to say, I felt rather chastised. Months ago, my husband had downloaded a pattern for cloth masks and I had made them for myself and my family, which we all have been wearing.

So I followed through. I went on line and purchased four N99 Base Camp masks, which should arrive in a couple of weeks (slow Post Office mail not withstanding). I shared this information with a close friend and neighbor, who is very well informed about many virus related issues and was interested in my purchase. She asked me about the specifics of the mask and then looked it up on line.

Woah. This started a back and forth that wound up disrupting our friendship, at least for the time being.

My friend responded that the mask has valves and that they spread the virus. Articles to this effect followed. She said to wear everything BUT that mask (with vents), and one that goes around your neck is better. “Did you read the articles? The vent releases viral particles which might not hurt you but could hurt someone else. If the CDC felt that it needed to send out a warning, don’t you think that might mean something?”

I responded that I was upset that she was putting down the masks I ordered. “The CDC is warning against them. Maybe ignore me, but read the articles.” She reiterated that the CDC recommends cloth masks.

Upset, I called Howie. He walked me back. He assured me that to protect oneself from the virus, the N99 mask is the best and much better than cloth masks. He cautioned that if the mask wearer has the virus, some particles may be released through the vents but went on to say that other types of homemade masks, such as cloth masks, do not fit well and would also release virus particles, likely much more so. Naturally, someone who is infected should be quarantined and has no business walking around with any mask.

I did not want to get into a back and forth with my friend and my husband suggested I wait and let it go for a while. Always good advice.

Much to my surprise on Sunday, Salon had a lengthy article on this very issue: CDC warned the public against wearing valved face masks-- while recommending them to health care workers.

It turns out the issue of vented masks has become a political tool. Apparently, the airline industry lobbyists have been hard at work. What a surprise!

It is a long piece, and readers are encouraged to read it in its entirety. For DWT, I will highlight some of the pertinent parts here (italics mine).

The politicization of science in the Trump era-- from the manipulation of the National Weather Service to the suppression of information on climate change at the Environmental Protection Agency-- has been as spectacular as it has been horrific. The latest and most peculiar example comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), once the standard for science that informs and shapes health policy in the US and around the world.

In a recent update to its recommendation regarding facemasks, which made national news, the CDC recommended that Americans not wear valved masks. These types of facemasks have a piece of plastic embedded in the fabric with a one-way valve that opens when you exhale and closes when you inhale.

Certainly amid the pandemic there is a great deal of confusion about masks. Yet the agency's latest guidance adds to the confusion rather than clarifying it. In fact, the agency's updated guidance contradicts years of their own safety advice to health care workers; indeed, the CDC's website features a database that includes more than 600 models of valved facemasks recommended for health care settings.

Moreover, the agency admits that it updated the policy without any new data. Peculiarly, the new CDC guidance in early August aligns with a Delta Airline company policy issued in July. Like the CDC guidance update that followed, Delta's earlier policy rejects valved N95 respirators while accepting the wearing of bandannas and neck gaiters-- which offer far less protection to the wearer and to those around them.

On its surface, the agency's logic for this appears to make sense. Valved masks release a small amount of exhaled air, which, if a person has coronavirus, could be virus-ridden air-- thus possibly putting those immediately nearby at risk.

While it is true that a small amount of unfiltered air escapes through the valves, there is scant scientific evidence studying how much and how high the risk is. One well-publicized paper (by Duke University physicists), released after the CDC mask guidance change, indirectly looked into the matter... It suggested that, in comparison with the "gold standard" of respiratory protection (an N95 respirator without a valve), an N95 with a valve "can decrease protection" for those around the wearer, but is overall far better at stopping viral spread than a bandanna or neck gaiter-- two other types of ersatz masks that the CDC does recommend. Indeed, the Duke scientists found that bandannas and neck gaiters "offer very little protection." In any case, since scientific research doesn't seem to have influenced the CDC's guidance, the question remains as to why the CDC suddenly recommended against valved masks. The answer may have something to do with the work of airline industry lobbyists. But the media coverage of the CDC's guidance has largely eclipsed the connection.

The media comes for valves

After the CDC’s recommendation against valved masks, the media hyped the news as if the science were settled. One headline at Fox News read: "Avoid wearing coronavirus face masks with vents, valves, CDC says in updated guidance." CNN writes: "Do Not Wear Masks With One Way Valves or Vents"; the Washington Post concludes: "Face masks with valves or vents do not prevent spread of the coronavirus, CDC says."

To be fair, no face covering, short of a properly-fitted N95 respirator, can claim to completely prevent coronavirus' spread. Surgical masks are not designed to create a perfect seal, or to filter out 95 percent of virus particles, and they cannot be fit-tested. Those masks, as well as loose-fitting cotton masks, leave gaps that leak air. They could also leak virus particles, as people breathe in and out. It doesn't take scientists in a lab to see this. Look at just about any random group of mask-wearing people in a store or on the street and observe that large gaps beside the nose or under the ears are visible, and that these are obviously far larger and probably of far greater consequence than the tiny vents on an exhale valve. The zealous focus on valves seems to be a case of missing the forest for a few trees.

Thus it may not be a surprise that the CDC guidance, revised August 7, aligns with the aforementioned Delta Airlines facemask policy dated July 25 that banned valved N95 respirators and any other masks with valves from flights. Delta based its policy on the fear that valves may leak virus particles through a tiny vent. Fair enough. But surgical masks, cotton masks, bandannas, and gaiters all allow particles to get directly through their material, as well as through gaps and leaks around the sides. The updated CDC guidance, which is not based on any new data, contradicts advice the agency has been giving to health care workers for years – and the advice it continues to give them on its own website.

In any case, the extensive media coverage about valved masks ignored that CDC documents published in February-- reviewed by the CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) on April 9, and updated by the CDC's National Personal Protective Laboratory on August 3-- contradict its new guidance, issued on August 7. That new guidance followed a lobbying campaign by the airline industry.

The CDC's contradictory advice

3M, the principal manufacturer of N95 respirators, stated in June that they were "not aware of any studies on whether airborne germs exit a respirator through the exhalation valve." They added that as of June, the CDC, NIOSH, and WHO had issued "no guidance on this issue." But 3M noted that the valve does not open far, and that some particles would stick to the valve's membrane rather than exit.

In this same FAQ updated August 8, the CDC stated that because N95s without exhalation valves make it "more difficult to breathe" and may be "hot and uncomfortable," hospitals may want to "consider having employees who are not doing surgery, not working in a sterile field, or not potentially exposed to high velocity streams of body fluids wear a standard N95 with an exhalation valve."

Deconstructing malarkey around valved N95s

The CDC's current recommendation regarding valves that regulate outward flow of air notwithstanding, the agency previously recognized the benefits to valves, stating, "An exhalation valve reduces excessive dampness and warmth in the mask from exhaled breath." Damp or wet masks are not merely uncomfortable, but they are dangerous-- as they can increase the transmissibility of airborne viruses to the user.

Further, the CDC admits that N95 respirators (with or without valves) are safer than surgical masks when the user inhales...

"Surgical masks are not designed for use as particulate respirators and do not provide as much protection as an N-95 respirator. Most surgical masks do not effectively filter small particles from air and do not prevent leakage around the edge of the mask when the user inhales."

Incongruously, the CDC guidance now suggests that a coarsely woven and loosely fitted bandanna or neck gaiter is somehow safer than one of the 624 valved N95 respirators that the CDC recommends to health care workers. What might fly in the industry-friendly, science-averse Trump CDC might be seen as malarkey in another administration.

An example of the CDC's use of false and loaded language is its claim that valves "allow air to be exhaled through a hole in the material." (This claim also belies OSHA's study.) An actual valve is a secure plastic fixture with a membrane that opens when you breathe out and closes when you breathe in. It is not by any reasonable definition, a "hole."

Two-way protection

Another red flag in the CDC guidance is that it suggests that masks are intended only to protect others, when in fact they protect in both directions. While their stated concern is "source control," the CDC has no warning against leaky unfitted masks, including those better-than-nothing cloth face coverings and other homemade masks of any quality.

3M states: "Note that surgical masks, procedural masks and face coverings-- which are often worn to control the spread of infectious diseases-- are not designed to fit tightly to the face and have gaps around the face through which air will leak both inward when the wearer inhales and outward when the wearer exhales, potentially including expelled particles."

3M added that procedure masks and homemade cotton masks do not fully prevent the spread of virus particles either because in addition to gaps between the mask and face, "air and particles will also travel through the mask material at different rates depending on their construction."

So what could have propelled the CDC's recommendation to ditch valved masks?

It may have something to do with the Trump administration's accommodation of the airline industry, and the struggle of the airlines to cope with the pandemic.

The airline industry connection

On April 24, United became the first airline to require employees to wear masks. Three days later, based on the CDC's voluntary guidance to wear facemasks outside the house as a best practice, JetBlue announced that it would require passengers to wear masks, too, effective May 4, 2020. On April 30, Delta Airlines announced that passengers would be required to wear masks, also effective May 4. Frontier Airlines and Lufthansa announced the same day that they would require passengers to wear masks on planes and in terminals by May 8.

On July 27, Delta banned "any mask with an exhaust valve" on its flights, while allowing any basic "cloth face covering over their nose and mouth." This would include a neck gaiter or loosely woven, loosely fitted bandanna with gaps around the nose, beside the ears, and under the chin big enough to poke fingers through. A sleeping passenger with a cloth napkin over his face might arguably pass muster by Delta's standard.

After the CDC updated its guidance on valved masks on August 7, Delta claimed that it was "aligning with best practice guidelines from the CDC"-- although Delta had actually banned valved masks nearly two weeks earlier. That suggests that the CDC was following Delta's lead. It may not be coincidental that both the CDC and Delta are headquartered in Atlanta.

The Hill reported on June 21 that airports had begged the Trump administration to set a facemask policy for passengers. The airports and the unions not only did not get the regulation that they had fought for, but the CDC guidance on valved masks achieved a key aim for the industry without appearing to be just for them.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that government agencies and a compliant, conveyor-belt media have spread misinformation about masks in the name of (faulty) science.

Early in the pandemic, Americans were told not only that they don't need to wear masks, but that they don't work. It is possible that this was a lie intended to try to discourage consumers from buying up protective masks that were desperately needed by health workers, and were in short supply at the time.

But by lying and telling the public that they don't need masks, as University of North Carolina sociologist Zeynep Tufekci wrote in the New York Times, "the authorities sent a message that made them untrustworthy." And the CDC is repeating their error in scolding the public not to wear valved N95 respirators because they are allegedly dangerous, while recommending them to health care workers because they are safe.

The subtle scapegoating of valved masks notwithstanding, the exponential spread of the coronavirus in 2020 is not due to the relatively small number of people wearing valved masks, but rather a major factor is the overwhelming number of people who refuse to wear masks of any kind, those who wear inadequate masks or who do not wear masks properly, and who do not socially distance and who engage in large group events without adequate or even any protection.

The one obvious question not explicitly dealt with in the Salon article is WHY. Why did Delta prohibit vented masks? What was the motivation? Well, the most obvious possibility is MONEY. Vented masks are far more expensive. Airlines staff might well prefer to wear them, as they offer far better protection for the user compared to typical surgical masks. It may be that airlines would not want to absorb this cost, increased virus risk to their employees be damned. Other possibilities? Legal aspects? Perhaps DWT readers could offer other ideas.

So, where does this leave me with my friend? Clearly, it is inadvisable to rehash any discussion of masks. Different opinions are always present in any friendship, as are occasional disagreements. We have been friends for thirty years and surely this is a minor hiccup. A mask is like a piece of lint compared to the fabric of Trump horror, of which we strongly concur. Our friendship will survive. Serenity Now!

The Hone Ranger

Will Delta's Far Right CEO Take The Airline Out Of America?

Oh boy... 2,000 extra bonus points from Delta, the airline that doesn't let their customers use frequent flier miles! The above ad came as an e-mail yesterday, the same day Delta threatened to follow Blackwater, Halliburton and other extreme right-wing companies out of the U.S. Richard Anderson, who's personally donated tens of thousands of dollars to right-wing politicians-- including heavy contributions to Boehner, McConnell, Romney, McCain and deranged nihilistic teabaggers like Tim Walberg (R-MI), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), John Bircher Paul Broun (R-GA) and Taliban Dan Webster (R-FL)-- told a crackpot Fox propagandist, Neil Cavuto, that he might pick up his toys (Delta) and leave Atlanta (and the U.S.) if he isn't free to keep up his anti-union policies.

Anderson is grumpy because of a change in labor policy that makes it easier for union organizers to win elections.

To understand what's changed you need to know that in the past, when employees were presented with the option of joining a union it wasn't just the "yes" votes and the "no" votes that were counted. The number of people who did not vote was tallied too and those non-votes were considered "no" votes. The philosophy behind this somewhat odd practice is to make sure that a majority of all employees vote for the change, giving a voice even to those workers who don't want one enough to actually cast a vote. 

...Certainly Delta is not alone in opposing anything that will increase the likelihood of unionizing. Fed Ex and UPS are also said to be lobbying hard to overturn the new National Mediation Board policy on union elections. 

But it's only Delta's top dog who decided to go on national television and threaten the nation with its exodus.

"Capital is mobile" Anderson said in a not-at-all-veiled threat that if Congress comes down on the wrong side of the unionization policy, companies will pack up and move, repeating the threat three times. 

Where might unhappy companies like his go you might ask? Anderson cites appreciatively the locomotive-like economies in Brazil and China. Now if Delta is planning to pull up stakes from Atlanta, its home for the last 70 years and carry its kit and kaboodle down to Rio or Shanghai that's news! Unfortunately, and Mr. Anderson surely knows this, a raft of restrictions would have to be changed for a US airline to makes its headquarters anywhere outside of the USA.

Delta's employees are generally so dispirited that the company's service is miserable and Delta is widely considered the worst airline in America. Dozens of groups representing tens of millions of Americans are boycotting it for dozens of different reasons. Survey after survey show that they rank at the bottom of the heap in everything travelers care about-- and since Anderson took over and made Delta a vehicle for his neo-fascist political agenda, the airline has gotten noticeably worse. A few hours later Delta spammed its e-mail lists with another offer:

Delta-- The Worst Airline In America... Reason Number 299

If you follow my travel blog, you may have noticed that over the past 5 years we've been talking about the shocking inadequacies of Delta as an airline. Just last week, we saw that their frequent flyer miles are only usable 12.9% of the time-- as opposed to Southwest (99.3%) or American Airlines (57.9%). It turns out that they are also a right-wing, anti-union operation that has been working behind the scenes to undermine American democracy. As I learn more and more about Delta, I realize they're coming from the exact same tradition as the American corporations that were pushing fascism and opposing democracy even while we were fighting World War II. And, ironically, Delta has been exposed this week ripping off American military servicemembers returning from the Afghanistan war. This is the real spitting in the face of returning warriors:

Delta Airlines was caught this week charging troops returning from Afghanistan an extra $200 each to bring a fourth bag home, forcing one unit to pay more than $2,800 in baggage fees. Evidently, Delta’s policy is to allow troops only three free checked bags, while the soldiers said that their military orders allow them to carry up to four bags free of charge. In a video, Staff Sergeant Robert O’Hair explained what occurred:

"We had four bags, and Delta Air Lines only allows three bags. Anything over three bags you have to pay for, even though there’s a contract between the United States government and Delta Air Lines when returning from Afghanistan on military orders, you’re authorized up to four bags. [...] We actually had to end up paying, out of pocket, our own money, to allow that fourth bag to be taken on the plane. [...] For me [the fourth bag] was a weapons case…the tools that I use to protect myself and Afghan citizens while I was deployed in the country."

In 2010 Delta soaked its passengers for $3.7 billion in money they were about to squeeze out of passengers by charging for food, drinks and extra baggage, the most of any U.S. airline.

"A $200 bill for extra baggage by a government-contracted airline is the worst welcome home any soldier could receive," said Joe Davis, director of public affairs for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, in a statement. "We know this is a business issue and that the troops will be reimbursed if they are authorized additional baggage in their orders, but the shock of even being charged is enough to make most servicemen and women simply shake their heads and wonder who or what it is they are protecting."

VetVoice issued a statement about Delta yesterday demanding that Delta stop charging returning troops for checking their bags and refunding the charges to those already victimized.

"Our troops are deployed to war for months at a time-- they aren't packing light for a weekend on the beach. Delta shouldn't be sending the signal that it puts profits ahead of the men and women in uniform. They need to immediately stop charging returning troops for bag checks, and fully reimburse those who already have been charged," said Ashwin Madia, an Iraq War Veteran, and Chairman of VoteVets.org.

There are a lot of reasons to look for alternatives to flying on Delta. Add the way they treat our servicemen and women to that list. I bet Darrell Issa's fake investigation committee won't be looking into this one.

Delta backed down and changed their policy because of adverse publicity: The video (below) was removed from YouTube:



So there's this instead [UPDATE-- and someone rescued the original]

Is It Safe To Fly on Delta?

I'm sure there's a totally reasonable explanation for why all the U.S. carriers now offer the worst service in the skies and why Delta is even worse than the other U.S. airlines. I've long given up on Delta-- and even hesitate to use the American Express credit card that is attached to it's frequent flyer program-- and always look for an alternative when I'm flying. After Friday's blatantly bigoted outrage in Memphis, I would think a lot more Americans will stop flying Delta as well.

I suppose if you're some provincial, bucktoothed bumpkin who's never seen a Muslim cleric, one look at the two Muslim scholars boarding the Delta flight to Charlotte would be enough to ensure a panic attack. Fortunately the pilot restrained himself from shooting them and merely kicked them off "his" plane (before it took off). It didn't matter that they had been searched and body-searched not once, but twice. They had Muslim beards and hippie clothes.

Masudur Rahman, a professor of Arabic at the University of Memphis, and Mohamed Zaghloul, Imam at the Islamic Association of Greater Memphis, were asked to deplane Atlantic Southeast Airlines flight 5452 from Memphis to Charlotte. They were subjected to additional security checks after the plane had pushed back from the gate, Rahman told Reuters by telephone.

After additional screening, the two men were cleared by Delta representatives to re-board the plane, but were then told the pilot would not take them, Rahman said.

Rahman said both men had been cleared for check-in and boarding by airline and Transportation Security Administration officials during normal pre-flight procedures.

According to a TSA spokesman, the decision to remove the two passengers was made by the airline.

Delta apologized-- to the passengers who were inconvenienced by the delay. The two Muslims were, ironically enough, headed for a conference on Islamophobia, where they were scheduled to lead prayers. They were 9 hours late for the conference. Delta couldn't be doing a better job if they were being paid directly by al-Qaeda. In fairness, I need to point out that Delta doesn't just discriminate against Muslims; they hate musicians (especially violinists) as well-- and musicians have joined the Delta Boycott. I hope the world's 1.5 billion Muslims do as well.

The American Federation of Musicians, the largest union representing professional musicians in the United States and Canada, is calling on its 100,000 members to boycott Delta Airlines over the airline's refusal to let musicians carry their instruments with them on board flights.

...The AFM has worked with the U.S. Transportation Security Administration and U.S. airlines to educate them on the need for musicians to be able to carry fragile, valuable and sometimes, historic, instruments with them in the cabin, instead of leaving them with baggage handlers untrained in the care of such valuable cargo. Indeed, U.S. law limits the amount that airlines can be held liable for damaged, destroyed or lost luggage-- limits set far below the value of even low-grade, factory violins.
The TSA has written a letter, distributed by the AFM to its members, requesting that airline personnel accomodate professional musicians travelling with their instruments. But Delta's employees routinely ignore that request and the airline's policy has been to check all musical instruments, regardless of the airline's inability to care for them properly in the baggage hold.

In an article in the June 2006 issue of Internation Musician, AFM President Thomas F. Lee wrote, "The Federation has spoken with Delta's representatives, but without success. It appears that Delta has no concern about instrument damage. As a result, the AFM, its members, and all musicians must take a different approach to this problem. We must publicize this unfair treatment."

I don't even want to think what they'd do if anyone like these guys showed up at one of their gates!

Perhaps Republicans Believe That Only A Blowhard With Multiple Bankruptcies Knows What It Takes To Game The System In Their Favor

Everyone was getting angry with Village Idiot David Gergen last week. I don't understand why. Whenever he's on TV yammering away his hackneyed conservative blather I just picture him running around the woods with Kissinger and Dubya in their birthday suits after all the women are shuttled back to Frisco at 3pm and they can all start urinating in peace.

WEST

Florida freak Allen West was bragging all over Washington last week-- to anyone who bothered to listen to the blowhard freshman-- how he wouldn't vote for Boehner's with Obama on the spending resolution to keep the government afloat. He claimed

$39 billion in cuts is insufficient. Asked whether he was pleased with the agreement on policy riders, West responded, "It's all about the money."

West, a freshman who is popular with the Tea Party, said he is a firm "no" on the measure, which will be voted on next week.

And yet, when last night came, there was West, teabaggers be damned, voting with the 208 Republicans and 140 Democrats in favor of the compromise, having abandoned the 28 Republican radicals he usually likes being seen hanging around-- Bachmann, King, Broun, Gohmert, Amash and fellow Floridians Connie Mack and Steve Southerland-- who all voted NO.

TRUMP

Everyone I know insists Donald Trump is just making noises like he's running for president (of the United States... of America) in order to get some viewers for his tired TV sitcom-- an elaborate Newt or Palin-worthy publicity stunt. But I'm not so sure. Is it beyond the realm of consideration that Trump is just holding the Republican Party and it's credulous, bumpkin base up to ridicule? I mean even Trump couldn't possibly believe the nonsense that's been pouring out of his mouth lately. Yesterday's Brattleboro Reformer summed it up nicely in a feature, Trump in 2012:

In an indication of how lacking the Republican field of presidential nominees for 2012 is, blow-dry, flip-top Donald Trump recently placed second (tied with former Governor Mike Huckabee) behind Mitt Romney in a poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal.

Trump also placed second to Romney in the latest survey of New Hampshire Republican primary voters.
We’d like to say we are astounded by that poll result, but there’s really no way to predict what those whacky Granite State Republicans are going to do from one moment to the next.

On the Today Show, Trump said people connect with him because "I happen to be smart. I happen to have a lot of common sense."

He also said "I built a great company. I would run a great, great country. This country would be great again."

OK, let’s step back for a second and consider something.

In 1991, Trump filed business bankruptcy and almost had to file for personal bankruptcy. A year later he had to once again declare bankruptcy.

We’re not done yet.

In 2004, he filed for bankruptcy protection and restructured his debt and in 2009 he filed for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Maybe that’s how he plans to fix the nation’s financial woes-- file bankruptcy.

What Trump has proved about his intelligence is he knows how to game the system and walk away unscathed.

Trump is also favored over all Republican contenders by Tea Party supporters, according to a recent NBC/WSJ poll.

When asked if he considers himself a member of the Tea Party, Trump said, "I think so."

He's also looking for any jingoists he can dig up beyond the teabagger set.

"Unless we get the oil, I have no interest in Libya," says Trump.

Here's a candidate who is willing to go on CNN and say-- of COURSE it's about the oil! You don't get involved in a place like Libya to help a bunch of rebels you don't really know:

"We don't know who's being slaughtered," says Trump. "We cannot be the policemen for the world."

Yes we can't be the world's policeman.

He prefers the Genghis Khan model:

"In the old days when you had a war, when you won the war, you won. If they had oil, if they had diamonds, if they had gold - What's going to happen in Iraq is absolutely amazing, two minutes after we leave, Iran is going to take over the great oil fields of Iraq. If I'm president at the time, Iran is not taking over the Iraqi oil fields, we will."

The Trump Doctrine. Don't just occupy Iraq-- colonize it.

I bet he'd also be the first president who instead of pardoning the Thanksgiving turkey, would just chop its head of right there on the South Lawn.

Didn't Palin already stage some kind event like that?

America's Worst Airline

That would be Delta and their timing, as always, was impeccable as they sent out announcements about private jet travel being "within reach" for a mere $43,900... just as the Republicans and Obama slashed up another segment of what was left of the social safety net:

Hello Mr. Klein,

Now is the perfect time to try the flexibility and convenience of private jet travel.

Experience Delta Private Jets with the 10-hour Fleet Membership Card-- starting at $43,900* in the light jet category-- and enjoy guaranteed availability and fully-refundable hours that never expire, along with a heritage of service and safety.

Or better yet, travel with the long term assurance offered by the Air Elite Jet Card, which includes simplified "all-in" hourly pricing that includes taxes and fuel and locked-in rates for up to two years. With the Air Elite Jet Card, you'll have the option to use the funds for both private and commercial travel. And you will also receive SkyMiles® Diamond Medallion® status and 20% savings on full-fare First or BusinessElite® tickets on Delta flights.

Learn how you can start enjoying the many benefits of private jet travel by visiting DeltaPrivateJets.com or calling 1-877-541-3548.

* Does not include taxes of approximately $3,400 if all flights are domestic; taxes are lower for international flights. Membership fee does not include a variable Fuel Component Adjustment ranging from approximately $690 per hour for a Light Jet to $1,170 per hour for a Large Jet as of April 1, 2011.

Don't ask me why they sent this to me. In a former life I was president of a division of Warner Bros. There were 4 private jets at my disposal. I think I was the only divisional president who never ordered one. I thought it was sinful when the cost could go towards promoting our artists' music instead. I always thought it was a decadent excess and I was even embarrassed to ride with other people on their private jets.

Bastard Fairies

Let's elevate the discussion. Our old friends the Bastard Fairies are on hiatus, Yellow Thunder Woman did the very unbarstardly thing of getting pregnant, and is now super happy and settled back on the reservation. In the meantime Robin has been busy launching a new band called Well Hung Heart and he sent along the first video yesterday, "This Is Not Love," which you may like as much as I do:

People Who Can Afford This Offer From Delta To Travel By Private Jet Owe Obama Big Time-- But Won't Support Him Regardless

Over at TheAroundTheWorldBlog, the contention for years is that Delta is #1, the #1 worst airline in the entire known universe. And in the midst of an excruciating recession and a Republican Party filibuster of an unemployment insurance extension and a concerted move by conservatives of both parties to dismantle Social Security, Delta isn't winning many new friends with their brand new holiday offer:

Hello Mr. Klein,

This holiday season, treat family, friends and yourself to the ultimate gift of luxury and flexibility-- private jet travel.

The 5-hour Fleet Membership Card from Delta Private Jets makes the perfect present, and is now available starting at $27,500 for the light jet category.*

You don't have to travel with your party to use the card, so anyone you choose can enjoy the comfort and freedom of private jet travel. And with Delta Private Jets, you can always count on guaranteed availability, around-the-clock customer service, and the highest standards of operational excellence.

But hurry. The 5-hour Fleet Membership Card is only available through December 31st. Visit DeltaPrivateJets.com or call 1-877-323-JETS (5387) to purchase the 5-hour Jet Card today.

*Pricing includes fuel and taxes, and membership will be valid for 12 months from effective date of agreement.

The other day Ken suggested a picture of an empty bench could well be the emblem of the Obama judiciary. Delta private jets for rich people with extra tax refunds they don't know what to do with could be the emblem of his shockingly corporate "bipartisan" domestic agenda. It's an agenda so straight out of the Bush era that die-hard Obama supporters like NY Congressman Anthony Weiner and former Martin Luther King friend/attorney/speech writer Clarence Jones are coming to the same conclusion Paul Krugman wrote last week: progressives need to look elsewhere for leadership than the White House. Blue America has suggested Bernie Sanders. Jones endorsed the idea of a primary against Obama! First Weiner:

Governing is more than a series of transactions. This is a competition of ideas on how we make the country better."

"Middle class Americans need someone to fight for them. They see this deal as punting on 3rd down-- it seems the President is not seeing the value of being on offense."

"Democrats should welcome the chance to tell the American people what we will fight for. We should be standing up for the middle class and extending unemployment insurance for out-of-work Americans. If Republicans want to add to our deficit and defend the interests of billionaires, make them stand up in Congress and tell that to the public loud and clear."

"Deals come after we fight for ideals-- let's do that first.

Although my pal Roland works in an inner city school and has been telling me that the African-American women in the teachers union there are all sorry they ever supported Obama over Hillary Clinton, most progressives are afraid of African-American reaction if they start responding to Obama in the way they would respond to any other conservative. Perhaps Jones' post will wake a few people up in that regard. Once accused of being an apologist for Obama, Jones is disappointed by his abysmal lack of leadership on just about every issue facing Americans, including on specific ones he campaigned on.

It is not easy to consider challenging the first African-American to be elected as President of the United States. But, regrettably, I believe that the time has come to do this.

It is time for Progressives to stop "whining" and arguing among themselves about whether President Obama will or will not do this or that. Obama is no different than any other President, nominated by his national party. He was elected with the hard work and 24/7 commitment of persons who believed and enlisted in his campaign for "Hope" and "Change."

You don't have to be a rocket scientist nor have a PhD in political science and sociology to see clearly that Obama has abandoned much of the base that elected him. He has done this because he no longer respects, fears or believes those persons who elected him have any alternative, but to accept what he does, whether they like it or not.

It is time for those persons who constituted the "Movement" that enabled Senator Barack Obama to be elected to "break their silence"; to indicate that they no longer will sit on their hands, and only let off verbal steam and ineffective sound and fury, and "hope" for the best.

The answer is blowin' in the wind.

The pursuit of the war in Afghanistan in support of a certifiably corrupt Afghan government and the apparent willingness to retreat from his campaign commitment of no further tax cuts for the rich, his equivocal and foot dragging leadership to end DADT, his TARP for Wall Street, but, equivocal insufficient attention to the unemployment and housing foreclosures of Main Street, suggest that the template of the 1968 challenge to the reelection of President Lyndon Johnson now must be thoughtfully considered for Obama in 2012.

And, as Mike Konczal pointed out yesterday, Obama's policy thrust seems less about being forced to compromise with big bad Republicans-- who are still in the minority in both Houses of Congress-- as it is about an Administration conservative gameplan laid out very clearly over time by Peter Orszag, "the best barometer for what the Obama administration is currently doing in terms of the economy and budget." Yesterday Krugman tried again, practically begging Obama-- for his own sake, the sake of the Democratic Party and, most important, the sake of the American people-- especially the ones who elected him president, to Let's Not Make A Deal.

Back in 2001, former President George W. Bush pulled a fast one. He wanted to enact an irresponsible tax cut, largely for the benefit of the wealthiest Americans. But there were Senate rules in place designed to prevent that kind of irresponsibility. So Mr. Bush evaded the rules by making the tax cut temporary, with the whole thing scheduled to expire on the last day of 2010.

The plan, of course, was to come back later and make the thing permanent, never mind the impact on the deficit. But that never happened. And so here we are, with 2010 almost over and nothing resolved.

Democrats have tried to push a compromise: let tax cuts for the wealthy expire, but extend tax cuts for the middle class. Republicans, however, are having none of it. They have been filibustering Democratic attempts to separate tax cuts that mainly benefit a tiny group of wealthy Americans from those that mainly help the middle class. It’s all or nothing, they say: all the Bush tax cuts must be extended. What should Democrats do?

The answer is that they should just say no. If G.O.P. intransigence means that taxes rise at the end of this month, so be it.

Think about the logic of the situation. Right now, the Republicans see themselves as successful blackmailers, holding a clear upper hand. President Obama, they believe, wouldn’t dare preside over a broad tax increase while the economy is depressed. And they therefore believe that he will give in to their demands.

But while raising taxes when unemployment is high is a bad thing, there are worse things. And a cold, hard look at the consequences of giving in to the G.O.P. now suggests that saying no, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, is the lesser of two evils.

Bear in mind that Republicans want to make those tax cuts permanent. They might agree to a two- or three-year extension-- but only because they believe that this would set up the conditions for a permanent extension later. And they may well be right: if tax-cut blackmail works now, why shouldn’t it work again later?

America, however, cannot afford to make those cuts permanent. We’re talking about almost $4 trillion in lost revenue just over the next decade; over the next 75 years, the revenue loss would be more than three times the entire projected Social Security shortfall. So giving in to Republican demands would mean risking a major fiscal crisis-- a crisis that could be resolved only by making savage cuts in federal spending.

And we’re not talking about government programs nobody cares about: the only way to cut spending enough to pay for the Bush tax cuts in the long run would be to dismantle large parts of Social Security and Medicare.

...[I]f Democrats give in to the blackmailers now, they’ll just face more demands in the future. As long as Republicans believe that Mr. Obama will do anything to avoid short-term pain, they’ll have every incentive to keep taking hostages. If the president will endanger America’s fiscal future to avoid a tax increase, what will he give to avoid a government shutdown?

So Mr. Obama should draw a line in the sand, right here, right now. If Republicans hold out, and taxes go up, he should tell the nation the truth, and denounce the blackmail attempt for what it is.

Yes, letting taxes go up would be politically risky. But giving in would be risky, too-- especially for a president whom voters are starting to write off as a man too timid to take a stand. Now is the time for him to prove them wrong.

And the guys who can use their tax cuts for the Delta private jets? They all hate Obama anyway and have no intention of voting for him unless Palin is the only alternative. So who will vote for Obama? The people he's betraying on a daily basis? He shouldn't count on it because he's going to wind up as a one-termer just like Steve Driehaus did-- and for the same reasons-- and not as a one-termer who took a hit for doing the right thing for America, one termer for doing the bidding of the Big Business interests who financed his political career.