If you spend much time on social media you may have recently seen this:
For those who wonder what the rest said, both views are written by a cat and a dog each named Jason Gay:
America Needs To Get Back to Work
By A Cat
Enough is enough. American business has taken a historic plunge over the past month. It’s time to consider a practical plan for protecting public health—while also allowing for a return to work and, hopefully, a revival of the economy.
Oh, who am I kidding?
On behalf of cats everywhere, I’ll just say it: We want everyone out of the house.
It was cute for a while, but the party is over. We’re sick of this quarantine, shelter-in-place directive.
Sheltering in place? That’s a cat’s job. Cats invented sheltering in place—sleeping in the windowsill, the corner of the couch, the sock drawer in the closet and, if it gets a little too noisy, under the bed, eyes open, annoyed. Cats know what it takes to stay home all the time. We’re just tired of sharing our home with everybody else.
Have we liked getting snacks at unexpected hours? Sure. Is it nice to roll around on that warm laptop keyboard during Zoom calls? Sure is. Warm keyboards are heaven.
But it’s gotten to be too much. The other day I walked into the kitchen and saw someone standing in my 9 a.m. sun spot. So rude. That sun spot is only there for 15 minutes a day!
We (sort of) love you, and appreciate the occasional pats on the head, but cats are not the most social creatures. Sure, there are some exceptions. You might have one of those cats who actually enjoys human company. Congratulations.
But the vast majority of us—
BIRD OUTSIDE THE WINDOW! MUST! GET! BIRD!
Sorry. Where was I? Right. The vast majority of cats are ready for you to get back to work. Or just leave the house for longer than 15 minutes.
Please consider it. Not for America. For cats.
Why Not Work at Home Forever?
By A Dog
As America debates a return to work, it’s important not to rush. We need to balance the economy against the extremely valid concerns about public health and protecting lives.
And walks. We need to think about all of the walks.
And ball. We need to also chase the ball. Lots and lots.
Look: I’m a dog. I’m not some public intellectual. I’m a good, good dog, most of the time, but I just ate half of a baseball glove in the garage. I also knocked over a potted plant in the living room. I’m sorry. I’m a dog. What do you want?
The important thing is: Dogs want you to stay. These past four weeks, they have been some of the greatest weeks of our lives. You’re there in the morning. You’re there in the evening. You’re there at lunch. It’s the best.
And the walks…we’ve never been so fit in our lives! There’s the 8:30 a.m. walk, the 11:15 a.m. walk, the 1 p.m. walk, the 3 p.m. walk, the 7 p.m. walk, and, if we’re lucky, a 9:30 p.m. walk.
Sometimes you throw the ball. And then I get the ball and bring it back to you. And then you throw the ball again, and I bring it back again. And again. And again. And again. Bliss.
I’m sure the cats are telling you they’ve had it. Never trust a cat. They’re rude animals. They don’t appreciate you.
But dogs understand what you bring to the table. We love having you at home. Stay. Stay forever. We promise to be a good dog. Or at least a pretty good dog.
Like many families with young children, Stan and Julia Usherenko had long planned to move to the suburbs, where they could afford a larger home and a yard. This year, they finally started what they assumed would be a leisurely search. Then the pandemic hit.
In mid-March—the last weekend that real-estate agents could hold an open house—Mr. and Mrs. Usherenko rushed to make an offer on a three-bedroom house in Midland Park, N.J., with a pool and fenced-in yard.
“If we didn’t go with this house, who knows when we’d find the next house,” Mr. Usherenko said. “We might have been stuck until much later. We went $25,000 over asking.”
Mr. Usherenko, a financial analyst, and Mrs. Usherenko, a psychotherapist, are both working full time in their two-bedroom apartment while caring for two toddlers. “We’re definitely not getting enough fresh air,” said Mr. Usherenko, whose grandfather recently died from coronavirus. “And it’s stressful. Every time we go outside, you don’t know who you’re passing by.”
They’re hardly the only family spurred by the pandemic to make a fast move, said Alison Bernstein, founder and president of Suburban Jungle, a company that specializes in matching city clients with their ideal suburban town, and helped the Usherenkos find their new home. “This whole thing is catastrophic and petrifying for families in urban areas,” she said. “People want out of the city and now.”
Ms. Bernstein said demand for her firm’s services is up 40% from the same period last year. Some are prompted by safety concerns. Others worry the shelter-in-place edict will drag on, confining them to small city apartments.
Carlo Siracusa, president of Residential Sales for N.J.-based Weichert Realtors said while inventory is low due to sellers pulling homes off the market, demand remains high because of a new wave of city dwellers shopping in the suburbs.
“They’ve been confined to a small space the last 45 days and want out,” he said. “There’s a sense of urgency.”
The real-estate market isn’t exactly lively these days, of course. In Manhattan, contract signings are down 77%, according to UrbanDigs. A National Association of Realtors survey, meanwhile, found that most buyers are delaying purchases.
But for some, the pandemic had the opposite effect.
By the end of March, Kristen Euretig was fed up with quarantine life in her Brooklyn rental apartment. She’s now enjoying a three-bedroom Airbnb rental outside Rochester, N.Y. with her husband, 18-month-old son and dog. And she’s surprised to discover how much her family enjoys country living.
When they want fresh air, there’s no need to don gloves, face masks and dodge neighbors crowding the apartment building lobby. They tumble out to the yard with its 16 acres of marshland that hosts ducks, geese and deer. “I’m not in a rush to head back,” said Ms. Euretig, who founded the financial advisory Brooklyn Plans, and is now working from home.
Indeed, the experience has the family rethinking its commitment to the city. Until the pandemic, the suburbs didn’t seem practical. But now that her husband, a lawyer, has proven his ability to work from home, they’re hoping his employer will be open to the idea. Last week, Ms. Euretig made her first call to a Hudson Valley real-estate agent.
The prospect of a mini-exodus is a real possibility, said Jonathan Bowles, executive director of the Center for an Urban Future, a Manhattan think tank focused on the local economy.
“New York is the epicenter for this pandemic,” he said. “Everybody knows that, and it’s understandable for people to think maybe a less dense place would be safer the next 12 to 18 months.”
But it is hardly a foregone conclusion, he said. Whether the flight from the city materializes depends largely on how authorities handle the situation during the coming weeks and months. “It’s all about whether people feel safe from another wave of the pandemic breaking out,” Mr. Bowles said.
After 9/11, some predicted the city would see a population decline spurred by fears of terrorism, he said. Instead, the population grew as the city demonstrated its ability to keep residents safe.
The catch: It may require long or repeated shutdowns to address the virus, which could itself spur suburban flight. What’s the point of paying crazy rent on a cramped apartment if you can’t enjoy the city?
Last month, after two weeks of quarantine living, Manhattan residents Eric and Heidi Matisoff packed their two toddlers and dog into an SUV and temporarily moved in with Mrs. Matisoff’s mother, who lives Northvale, N.J. On the drive over, the Suburban Jungle clients stopped to view an available four-bedroom house in Glen Ridge, N.J. They made an offer that day. The closing is scheduled for June 15.
The Matisoffs—he works at Adobe and she is a nurse practitioner who is on leave to care for the children—had been contemplating a move for a while. They are sad to be leaving the city behind, but the pandemic makes it easier.
“This could go on for six months, 12 months. And who knows what the city could look like after,” Mrs. Matisoff said. “The lure of leaving the city has increased.”
Yesterday on my work Facebook page, a reader asked, “Why is it that the places Covid-19 show up the most are in Democrat controlled areas?” As much as I’d like to believe that all the troubles in the world can eventually be traced back to Bill de Blasio, I responded, “Probably because ‘the places it shows up the most’ are large densely-packed cities with a lot of international and domestic air travel and high use of mass transit, where Democrats have been winning elections more than Republicans for at least a generation and in many cases several generations.”
You can split red and blue America in a lot of ways — race, age, religiosity — but arguably the strongest factor is geography. The “Big Sort” that Bill Bishop described has been at work for two decades. Sure, there are conservatives and Republicans who live in big cities and inner-ring suburbs, just rarely in the numbers that could make a difference. And there are progressives and Democrats who live in rural areas and exurbs, but again, rarely in the numbers that could make a difference in elections.
Meanwhile, it is not hard to find examples of urban progressives looking at rural America with a combination of contempt, disdain, pity, smug superiority . . . heck, it’s not hard to find urban progressives who see suburbanites as somehow inferior and worthy of scorn, never mind residents of small-town America. …
Are cities still worth it? Many will conclude they are. The opportunities are unparalleled, lots of jobs are there, the arts scenes are thriving, the professional sports teams are there. Nearby international airports allow you to get anywhere in the world fairly easily. Cities have more people closer together than towns and suburbs, so they just have more things going on — fascinating museums, festivals, marathons, concerts, pedestrian-only streets lined with quirky shops, distinct ethnic neighborhoods, small businesses, unique non-chain restaurants, skyscrapers and observation decks, broad boulevards, huge libraries, inviting public squares. Even the train stations can be beautiful. People who appreciate all the joys of a city — and who can still afford the cost of living — won’t easily give up all of that. Our cities will not empty out.
Meanwhile, it is not hard to find examples of urban progressives looking at rural America with a combination of contempt, disdain, pity, smug superiority . . . heck, it’s not hard to find urban progressives who see suburbanites as somehow inferior and worthy of scorn, never mind residents of small-town America.
But they may shrink, and this outbreak is likely to accelerate the trend of seeing urban life as a luxury for the wealthy and young and a necessity for the poor and old.
Whatever you want to call the trend in urban planning over the past two or three decades — I’d characterize it as Richard-Florida-ization — it has reoriented American big cities’ offerings, enhancing their appeal to certain groups of people, often at the cost of other groups of people. Florida now gets mocked as “the Patron Saint of Avocado Toast,” but I think the demographic numbers don’t lie. Cities are terrific and exciting places for young people, particularly college students and recent college graduates, and double-income, no-kids couples — and probably retirees as well. But once a couple has a child, urban life becomes a lot more difficult and less appealing. A small apartment can become unbearable with a new baby. The public schools are hit-and-miss at best. Bigger kids want a yard to play in, or maybe a swing set. The cost of living starts to be prohibitive.
And now we are learning, once again, that densely packed cities are particularly dangerous places to be during a disease outbreak.
If you’re living in New York City right now, the good news is that you’re living amongst some of the best doctors and medical personnel in the world. But you probably live in an apartment. Leaving that apartment requires using an elevator (use a glove to touch the buttons) or the stairs (don’t touch the railings or doorknobs with your bare hands). Once you get on the street, you can try to keep space between yourself and everyone else, but there are just lots of people around. Advocates for public transportation insist the connection between the subway system and the virus is ‘tenuous,” but . . . how many other places are you forced into relatively close contact with lots of strangers with circulated air for a significant stretch of time? How many people use those stairway railings each day? How many people touch the turnstiles and subway poles?
Life in a small town or the suburbs is no guarantee of protection from the coronavirus. Tiny Cynthiana, Ky., population around 6,300, had a cluster of cases, fourteen in the town and surrounding county. My stretch of suburbia, Fairfax County, has 2,306 cases. But we’ve got 1.1 million people spread out over 406 square miles — roughly the size of Los Angeles. At least we can walk around our neighborhoods and the trails in the woods with minimal fear of exposure.*
The world has been forced to embrace telework and experiment with working from home like never before. The need for white-collar workers to all be in one central location — and paying some considerable rent for that office space — is shrinking before our eyes.
When authorities require or recommend you stay inside your home, your home becomes exponentially more important — not just a place to sleep and store your stuff. Kitchens matter when you’re cooking almost every meal at home. A yard, patio, deck, porch, or gazebo gives you the ability to enjoy fresh air within your own space.
Who knows if the coming year or two will have on-and-off social distancing and stay-at-home orders? All of those glorious amenities of the city aren’t that appealing if they’re closed.
Some reacted to the previous trend of the urbanization of America with satisfaction. After “White Flight” and “Brain Drain” and so many bad trends in American cities in the 1970s and 1980s, many urban areas were finally enjoying a renaissance. A handful became “innovation hubs for the knowledge economy” — New York City, Seattle, Austin, Boston, Silicon Valley — enjoying an explosion of jobs — with a much slower increase in the amount of available housing. Rents and the cost of real estate skyrocketed, creating glittering cities with much of the rest of America on the outside looking in.
And now some people in the cities may not want to live in them anymore. “Blue America” might be moving to the suburbs or right into “Red America” — and maybe we would be better off if we saw each other as neighbors, instead of rivals in a never-ending culture war.
The three biggest cities in Wisconsin — Milwaukee, Madison and Green Bay — are the three biggest outbreak areas, thanks to Milwaukee and Madison’s density and mass transit. Six counties comprising those three areas (and Milwaukee’s suburbs) comprise 80 percent of Wisconsin’s coronavirus diagnoses. That should tell you everything you need to know about urban areas and disease.
Wisconsin just posted its single largest, daily number of new, confirmed COVID-19 cases. Here’s why that’s not nearly as bad as it seems.
First… my Wauwatosa East High School friends will attest, if my math teacher, Mr. Waala, knew I was dropping math and stats knowledge here… he’d go into cardiac arrest. I was a terrible math student, and I dropped stats in college. Not exactly a glowing self endorsement, but with the help of my TMJ4 News colleagues, we’ve got this thing right.
One of the reasons Wisconsin took such a big jump in cases day to day is because we took a big jump in tests.
The below link has it all. We’ve been asking Wisconsin DHS to do the calculations and put this number front and center, but so far, we’re left to do the math on our own.
Break down:
Yesterday Wisconsin DHS reported 121 new, confirmed cases of coronavirus. Lowest number in a week.
Today, Wisconsin DHS reported 225 new, confirmed cases. Highest single day total ever.
Looks really bad.
HOWEVER, Tuesday’s number is based on 1359 tests. Today’s number is the result of 1886 tests. There were 527 more tests. Naturally one would expect more positive results.
Apples to apples, Tuesday’s number was about 9% positives of the pool of total tests. Today’s number, about 12%. Higher, yes, and not the direction we want to be going, but hardly the huge increase the raw numbers suggest. 3% is not a spike, it’s maybe a bump at most.
Please share the link below with friends, and refer to it often. We will work to update it with new, daily information. It will give perspective as Wisconsin aims to dramatically ramp up testing. Imagine how many positives we’ll get if we start nearing the Governor’s goal of 12,000 daily tests. We’re going to see some big raw numbers of new cases. Those numbers will be of limited relevance. It’s going to be about the percentage of the total… and that’s the metric the State is planning to use as health officials and the Governor determine if we’ve met that criterion for opening businesses again.
The results of a statewide survey by the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh show 35 percent of responding businesses say they will be forced to close if current coronavirus-related conditions persist for more than three months.
According to UWO, results also showed 8,795 jobs lost in the earliest days of Wisconsin’s Safer at Home order, along with losses of $95 million in inventory, $126 million in income, $26.6 million in lost wages and productivity income and nearly $404 million in other impacts.
The survey yielded nearly 2,550 responses from companies in 63 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties from April 1-10, according to Jeffrey Sachse, director of UWO’s Center for Customized Research and Services (CCRS).
“The conditions reported here represent companies’ efforts to adapt to changing conditions,” Sachse said. “These impacts are certain to rise when we revisit these companies in a month, two months and six months’ time. The assistance that these companies require and the effects felt throughout the state’s economy are both unprecedented and continuous.”
UWO is partnering on the survey project with the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation as well as New North and eight additional Regional Leadership Council organizations to assess coronavirus recovery ability and state and federal aid efforts. Additional cooperators include the Wisconsin Technology Council and the Wisconsin Workforce Development Association.
The business, ranging from small sole-proprietorships to large firms like Kobussen Buses and UW Health, were still trying to adapt to changes implemented in the Safer at Home order at the time of this survey.
UWO says 40 percent of responding firms indicated not being able to report specific impacts at the time, making the results understated.
The findings only point to greater effects as the worldwide health crisis persists, Sachse said.
He adds the firms reported using a variety of approaches, including delaying payments and reducing inventories, as means of minimizing the impact of the crisis.
“Responding firms suggested that their greatest immediate needs are access to greater liquidity in the form of low-interest loans, grants, and access to customers. This closely mimics trends reflected in the national policy debate and recent surveys reported by the Federal Reserve Board and Small Business Administration,” Sachse said.
Firms reported seeing a sharp reduction in productivity due to a shift to working from home, with most reporting a 25-50 percent decrease. This also tracks with national trends and reflects the difficulty that many traditional firms face in adapting to the rapidly changing conditions, he said.
The survey is the first in a series that will track the economic impact of the coronavirus, according to UWO. Responding companies will be surveyed again during the first months of May, June, July, and for the foreseeable future, with results released during the third week of each month.
In addition, CCRS has released an interactive dashboard detailing survey responses along with advice and insights from University faculty at http://uwosh.edu/ccrs/covid-19-survey.
Evers’ response was the Badger Bounce Back, which essentially freezes the state’s economy for a year by creating an impossible standard for testing.
Expanding their violent political playbook, liberals have started doxing conservatives who don’t support Gov. Tony Evers’ constitutionally suspect state lockdown orders.
Perhaps not surprisingly, their hateful efforts are brimming with ignorance.
Well-known Wisconsin conservative grassroots leader Matt Batzel posted photos on his Facebook page praising a rally in Brookfield last weekend opposing Evers’ extended Safer at Home edict. His page quickly exploded with left-wing rage.
Beyond the usual filthy name-calling and the silly claims of racism and Nazism, the “progressive” wits incorrectly accused Batzel of organzing the rally. Their Fake News claims are part of the faulty assertion pushed by liberal news outlets that local protest movements against government shelter-at-home orders are being led and fed by a handful of right-wing organizations.
Batzel, executive director of American Majority, a national nonprofit organization that trains conservative activists and political candidates, is no stranger to sparring with leftists. And he’s seen plenty of liberal lies and bad behavior over his years in politics.
But the vitriol and bile that greeted him on his social network account crossed the line into harassment and threats of violence, Batzel said.
“I am able to work from home, but if I had to travel for my job and leave my wife and five kids here, that would be very concerning,” he said.
The threats began after someone named Kay Spaude jumped online and accused Batzel of organizing the Brookfield protest. Kathleen McIlraith chimed in that she hopes if Batzel “has a job, he’s fired. And NO ONE hires him.”
Nick Iannone advised her to contact the Harris Policy Center at the University of Chicago, where Batzel is a lecturer for a political science course, to “get him fired.” Apparently, some fulfilled that threat. Batzel said the university received calls demanding he be removed from his part-time position.
They also threatened to go after his law license, asserting they would contact law regulators to try to get him disbarred.
Then the online mob turned decidedly violent.
“He’s got that face you want to punch,” someone wrote.
“Now we need his home address so he can be barricaded in,” Bill Brink commented.
Matthew Voit, apparently equal parts cowardly and grammatically impaired, wrote, “Somebody go get em. He protesting like a idiot.”
Keith Thompson mused, “Wouldn’t it be awful if the wrong people learned” that Batzel lived at an address in West Salem? Thompson noted the address. He was wrong on all counts. He had the wrong Matt Batzel, and the location was off by about 200 miles. That didn’t stop the liberal rage.
“Anyone want to waste a bullet. Target leg wound,” Deb Nelson wrote to the online mob.
Batzel said he called the police. They told him to block his violent “friends” on Facebook and call back if things escalate. Facebook, too, did nothing, despite the fact that its policies clearly don’t allow “Targeting someone with threats.”
Batzel, who has dedicated much of his life to conservative grassroots causes, worries that some will see what he has gone though and back away from the peaceful fight for liberty.
“We cannot be silenced. We cannot stand by and let the other side win by intimidation tactics. We have to continue to speak out,” he said. “Our rights are being eroded and attacked. We have to speak out. We can’t lose our freedom because we sat by idly or were threatened.”
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are getting louder in their call for the federal government to provide financial support for local news as the already struggling industry suffers another blow from the coronavirus pandemic’s impact.
On Monday, more than 240 House members signed a letter to President Trump, urging him to direct federal spending to ads in local media and to encourage businesses that receive stimulus funds to spend a portion of that money on the same.
This move is just the latest in a string of efforts by US lawmakers over the last month to address the pandemic’s effects on local news. Even as local news outlets see a surge in readership and viewership, their revenue sources have been decimated. Many local news outlets rely on ad dollars from local businesses and events that have been forced to shut down amid the pandemic.
Since March, thousands of people in the media industry have been laid off, furloughed, or have taken pay cuts as newspaper companies, alt-weeklies, local networks and digital outlets cut costs to make up for shrinking revenue.
Over the weekend, four lawmakers — Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), John Kennedy (R-LA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and John Boozman (R-AR) — urged Senate leaders in a letter to revise the rules to make local newspapers, and radio and television broadcasters eligible for small business assistance under the Paycheck Protection Program.
“Up to several thousand newspapers and hundreds of local radio and television stations across the country were cut out of existing programs by the U.S. Small Business Administration’s affiliation rule, which restricts assistance to companies owned or controlled by larger entities,”the letter said.“Even though these news outlets may be owned by larger groups, they operate independently.”
In order to qualify as a small business, a newspaper or digital outlet must employ 1,000 staffers or fewer. David Chavern, CEO and president of News Media Alliance, told CNN Business that his trade association, which represents about 2,000 news publishers in the US and Canada, has been lobbying for exemptions. His group isadvocating for local news outlets that are part of a larger company to qualify.
Earlier this month, 18 Democratic senatorsand independent Sen. Angus King wrote a letter to Senate leaders that called for any economic stimulus package to include money for local journalism.
“In a pandemic, information is one of the absolute key resources, and we need to be sure it’s still going. I mean, I don’t view this as long-term support for local journalism, but we’re talking about getting through a crisis here,” King told CNN’sBrian Stelter on “Reliable Sources” on April 12.
Chavern said the News Media Alliance is working with the National Association of Broadcasters to push for a federal funded advertising program to support local news.
Governments in other countries have enacted similar plans to support the media industry. In March, the Canadian government announced its intention to spend $30 million on an ad campaign for coronavirus awareness.
“To get America moving again and strengthen our communities in the midst of this evolving crisis, we must be creative and use all available tools,” Monday’s letter reads. “Advertising plays an incredible role in local economies, and its importance to the sustainability of local broadcast stations and newspapers cannot be overstated.”
The latest effort was led by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Reps. Debbie Dingell (D-MI), Bill Flores (R-TX), Marc Veasey (D-TX), and Fred Upton (R-MI). In total, 244 lawmakers signed Monday’s letter to the President. The show of support from across the political spectrum shows that the White House’s animus toward the press is not always shared by lawmakers who rely on the local media for coverage.
As these proposals are debated in DC, Chavern said the public can support local news now by buying subscriptions.
“The value of reliable local news has never been clearer,” Chavern said. “If you want that to continue in the future, then consumers need to subscribe and pay to get that content so that it’s there not only through this crisis but for the next one.”
Back in my (brief) newspaper ownership days, media companies were prohibited from getting government-backed loans — for instance, from the U.S. Small Business Administration, even though nearly every non-daily newspaper qualifies by itself as a small business — because of the inherent conflict of interest of a media outlet being given government money. (Other than publishing legal ads, which is simply a purchase of newspaper space, with the government setting the rate.)
It is remarkable that the proponents of this seem to see no conflict of interest at all with having the government lend money to media outlets that are supposed to be covering government. (Conservatives have very little trust in National Public Radio or PBS or their state-level versions for that reason.) Unless, of course, that’s a feature, not a bug — to have media outlets financially beholden to the government they’re supposed to be covering.
I have no good answer for the problems afflicting the news media as a business. But I don’t think government funding is a very good answer.
Today in 1964, the president of Britain’s National Federation of Hairdressers offered free haircuts to members of the next number one act in the British charts, adding, “The Rolling Stones are the worst; one of them looks as if he’s got a feather duster on his head.”
One assumes he was referring to Keith Richards, who is still working (and, to some surprise, still alive) 56 years later.
The number one British single today in 1965:
The number one British album today in 1972 was Deep Purple’s “Machine Head”: