FYI... Getting a 404 error when attempting to load comments on Charles' previous piece about Dr Phil and the war on cars.

Anyone who relies on Twitter for factual information is defective ab initio. Twitter is for telling the world you just took a huge dump, and it felt great.

The article at https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/04/16/wisconsin-election-justice-kelly-signals-hell-join-voter-purge-case/5143755002/
explains how the other 6 members of the WI Supreme Court were split evenly on the voter purge case (sending it back down to Appeals Court where it was unanimously decided in favor of the anti-purge ie leftward side). The new justice, Jill Karofsky's, vote on the upcoming re-hash case would probably tilt the court to the left 4-3.

Agree, and this is sad and makes me angry. Had him as a professor in the late 80s, and he showed then the “showman over facts” tendency you describe.

First the Four Horsemen and then Charles and I completely agree on something. This does not bode well...

This entire post is just because Reich made an error?

I agree with all of your points, Charles. But isn't this exactly what Cliff Mass was arguing about when it comes to Global Warming coverage? The truth is on our side, and it doesn't do our side any good when people we agree with can't get their facts straight.

@3 -- So, basically, the criticism may be over what amounts to a typo. Rather than "5", Reich typed "58". He may have been trying to type "5.8", since that is the amount that American is getting, and United could end up with a similar amount (they are eligible for 6 million according to this article, by the well respected Forbes magazine): https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhorton1/2020/04/15/how-the-us-is-distributing-airline-bailout-funds-in-covid-19-relief-deal/#559d42c563a1

Pot calling the kettle black.

@10 I agree about the probability of the "58" being a typo. I think both Charles and Reich should issue corrections when they make mistakes. Maybe they do so on Twitter, but the only time I see Twitter content is when I read SLOG.

Typically, Reich will go on to make a truely cogent and concise argument, lead up to what looks to me like an obvious conclusion, then take a right turn into some non sequitur cul-de-sac.
He is the left's Trump, a decade or more before Trump made the scene. I've stopped reading him, and suggested my friends do the same, unless he is an object lesson in logic, formal logic.
See where he is going by looking at the basic premises that he (likely got right) presents, and then stop and draw your own conclusions... THEN read his paragraphs on anaylsis.
The man seems Trumpian in his ability to get distracted, and has been doing this for years.