Slouching Towards Oblivion

Tuesday, January 05, 2021

Check The Record


Qult45's Legal Beagles are 1-for-62 now.

I think I can say Cleta Mitchell's career arc seems to be tied up in the kind of opportunism that doesn't speak well for her principles, and doesn't indicate to me that she has a strong sense of honor. She seems to chase the trends, and that means she goes wherever the pay stubs lead her.

That's not necessarily the worst thing in the world, until it comes to considering Right and Wrong as fungible items - nothing more than parts of the calculus you use to make your everyday decisions.

Once you make the rationalization that you're "just doing what good lawyers do - everyone is entitled to legal representation" - then you've begun to lose the thread.

WaPo: (pay wall)

Cleta Mitchell, a key figure in president’s phone call, was an early backer of Trump’s election fraud claims

On Nov. 7, the day that major media organizations projected Joe Biden had won the presidency, Republican attorney Cleta Mitchell appeared on Fox News with her own projection: The election was far from over.

“We’re already double checking and finding dead people having voted. We’re going to be finding people have voted across state lines, voted in two states, illegal voting, noncitizens and that sort of thing. So we are building that case,” Mitchell said, referring to the work of the Trump campaign’s legal team and foreshadowing many of its claims of fraud.

In the following days, Mitchell took particular aim at Biden’s win in Georgia, tweeting that the state’s recount was a “total sham” and “A FAKE!!!” She wrote that the effort was “cover for the SOS,” referring to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Responding to criticism of her appearance, she tweeted, “Happy to be considered a nut job because I believe in the rule of law.”

Mitchell largely stayed out of the spotlight in the following weeks as legions of lawyers for the Trump campaign failed in high-profile court cases across the country to get the election overturned. Behind the scenes, however, her role had escalated to the point that when President Trump on Saturday made a last-ditch phone call to get Raffensperger to “find” thousands of votes for him, it was the Washington-based Mitchell who emerged as a key player.

It wasn’t the first time Mitchell had alleged election fraud.

In a case that foreshadowed her work for Trump, Mitchell worked for the campaign of Sharron Angle, who ran against Sen. Harry M. Reid of Nevada in 2010. Mitchell wrote a letter soliciting campaign contributions, alleging that “Reid intends to steal this election if he can’t win it outright....Understand, EVERYTHING we have worked for in the last year could be destroyed by dirty tricks and criminal acts.”

As evidence, she said that teachers’ union representatives were offering Starbucks cards to people who voted for Reid. The secretary of state’s office dismissed her complaint, and Reid won reelection.

Mitchell’s role as a Trump legal adviser, which received widespread attention after The Washington Post on Sunday published audio and a transcript of the call, has surprised some colleagues, particularly because she is a partner at a major law firm, Foley & Lardner, that immediately faced questions about whether it endorsed such work.

In a statement Monday, the firm said, “We are aware of, and are concerned by, Ms. Mitchell’s participation in the January 2 conference call and are working to understand her involvement more thoroughly.” The firm noted that as a matter of policy, its attorneys do not represent “any parties seeking to contest the results of the presidential election,” although it did allow attorneys to observe recounts voluntarily as private citizens.

Throughout the hour-long call, Trump displayed an extraordinary degree of reliance on Mitchell. She is a onetime Democratic member of the Oklahoma legislature who became a Republican and has made a Washington career representing GOP candidates, committees and causes, culminating with her work after the election advising Trump.

At the outset of the call, Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said Mitchell was “not the attorney of record but has been involved” in the campaign’s lawsuits seeking to overturn Biden’s Georgia victory. The attorney of record, Kurt Hilbert, declined to comment.

Stephen Gillers, an ethics expert at New York University Law School, said the issue facing Mitchell is probably one relating to the law firm’s policy, adding, “I’m sure the firm is dismayed by the appearance of its lawyer on the transcript.”

Mitchell declined to comment.

Mitchell, 70, began her political career as a Democrat, helping win passage of Oklahoma’s Equal Rights Amendment for women and making history in the state legislature as the first female in the nation to chair a House budget and appropriations committee.

In an oral history, she said that she authored a successful proposal to have Oklahoma become the first state to have universal preschool. “I insisted that it couldn’t be means-based,” she said. “It had to be universal…. It wasn’t just some other people who were poor kids.”

Mitchell, then known by her maiden name of Deatherage, married Duane Draper, a fellow Oklahoman, and divorced in 1982. He later came out as a gay man, became director of the Massachusetts AIDS policy office and died in 1991; he had the disease when he died.

Mitchell married her second husband, Dale Mitchell, chairman of the board of Fidelity National Bank, in 1984, taking his last name. In exchange, according to a story at the time in the Oklahoman, he agreed to change his Republican registration to Democrat. Two years later, she ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor in the Democratic primary.

In 1992, Dale Mitchell was convicted of bank fraud, an experience that Cleta Mitchell later said was the result of “overreaching government regulation.” She became increasingly disenchanted with the social liberal policies she had supported and moved to Washington to become director of the Term Limits Institute. She advocated for allowing states to impose term limits on members of Congress, a measure that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. The combination of events led her to switch her registration to independent and then Republican.

A glowing 1996 New Yorker profile of her after she arrived in Washington, headlined “The Outsider,” described her as having given up the pursuit of elected office and setting herself as a leader of “antipolitical action.” The story quoted her as saying she used to be a social liberal who would “sit in the state capitol thinking of all the good things I could do with other people’s money” but eventually turned against what she called “our entitlement mentality.”

With her background as a Democrat and her newfound fervor as a Republican, she was courted by Washington’s conservative activists, and she became a leading lawyer for GOP candidates and committees.

“She came on the scene as a principled conservative Democrat,” referring to her fiscal outlook, “and emerged as a leader” among conservatives, said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, who hosts a weekly meeting in Washington for conservative activists and intellectuals.

She became associated with legal matters involving the Republican Party, the National Rifle Association and other politically active groups — particularly around campaign finance law.

“She talked to Republicans about how efforts to promote voter integrity and campaign finance reform were weaponized by Democrats as a way of limiting the political power of conservatives,” Norquist said. “She had a working knowledge of the Democratic Party and brought to Republicans an awareness of how Democrats” were advocating for politics that would effectively “shut down political opponents.”

One of Mitchell’s high-profile cases concerned a challenge to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law brought by the National Rifle Association and others in 2002.

Mitchell was co-counsel in that case with Charles Cooper, a conservative constitutional lawyer also representing the NRA. The pair argued that the law’s ban on soft money and other activities limited the First Amendment rights of the NRA and other groups. The court largely upheld the law in that case, but in subsequent challenges ruled in favor of claims that campaign finance rules undermined First Amendment rights of free speech.

“She is a very solid lawyer and very knowledgeable in election and campaign finance law,” Cooper said.

Cooper said he listened to audio of the Saturday phone call in which Mitchell advocated for Trump’s effort to overturn the election. While Cooper said he does not believe that “the Trump challenges to the election in Georgia or any other state have any merit whatsoever,” he said that Mitchell, in her role in the call, “was expressing a lawyerly frustration with an inability to obtain data necessary to investigate their concerns and to verify the secretary of state’s defenses.”

In the Saturday call, Trump told Raffensperger that he risked facing criminal consequences if he didn’t “find” enough votes to declare that the president had won the state. Raffensperger responded that “the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong.”

Trump then asked Mitchell, “Well, Cleta, how do you respond to that. Maybe you tell me?”

Mitchell complained to Raffensperger that “we have asked from your office for records that only you have” but had not received them.

Mitchell raised her claim that around 4,500 people voted after having moved out of Georgia. Trump interjected that the number was “in the 20s,” apparently meaning in the 20-thousands, but Raffensperger’s general counsel, Ryan Germany, said those numbers were not accurate. “Every one we’ve been through are people that lived in Georgia, moved to a different state, but then moved back to Georgia legitimately.”

Mitchell concluded her contribution by saying that she hadn’t even addressed the claim that voting machines were rigged, which Georgia officials denied. Trump interjected that “we don’t need” to prove that machines were rigged.

Trump said, “All we have to do, Cleta, is find 11,000-plus votes.”

So
  1. These lawyers are not very good at what they do
  2. They have nothing to bring to court
  3. They're only in it for the money
  4. They're so far up Trump's ass they can't see anything but polyps and diverticula
Did I mention they're 1-fer-62?

COVID-19 Update

World
  • New Cases:   543,364 (⬆︎ .65%)
  • New Deaths:      9,480 (⬆︎ .52%)
USA
  • New Cases:   190,165 (⬆︎ .94%)
  • New Deaths       1,987 (⬆︎ .57%)



They've been trying to get us to understand that the number of cases becomes kinda secondary to the resources we have available to treat those cases.

This is something I haven't been quick to emphasize, and have addressed only once or twice.

My basic problem is that it's hard to find a definitive answer to the question: How many ICU beds are there in USAmerica Inc? 
(approximately 71,000 total, including Specialty Critical Care - NICU, CCU, PICU)

IHME has good graphs and info, but when I'm looking at Total ICU Beds Needed (eg), the graph doesn't indicate how many beds are available.


You have to go to individual states to get that number, and here's the illustration of how bad it is in California, and by simple extension, how bad it's likely to get:

So, uhmm - yeah ... uh-oh.


L.A. County first responders told not to bring patients to hospital if survival chances are low

First responders in Los Angeles County have been told not to bring patients to hospitals if their survival chances are low, as health-care workers try to dig out from a deluge of covid-19 patients.

More than 128,000 people across the United States were hospitalized with covid-19 on Monday, according to data tracked by The Washington Post. That number is a record and represents an increase of 2,800 patients in a single day.

What Are We To Expect?


Speculation is running to the crazy side - even crazier that usual.

How far will Trump push the delusion?

Will Qult45 try to set up a counter-inauguration? Are they looking for a direct confrontation in order to give Trump the pretext they think will allow him to declare Martial Law and call out the troops?

Will their efforts be thwarted by Joe's evil plan for a virtual inauguration?

Will Mary Ann put on that leather bustier and go full blown Domme like the Professor always wanted? 

Will Gilligan and Mrs Howell get it on with this week's Special Guest Star?

Will Trump continue the bluff-n-bluster right up to the end and then simply run away - as per usual?

Every day is another episode of The American Playhouse Of Stoopid, and it's all just nine kinds of fucked up.


Official plane used by Trump will fly to Scotland just before Biden inauguration – report

Arrival of military plane president has occasionally used fuels questions over Trump’s plans for 20 January

The murk surrounding Donald Trump’s likely whereabouts on his last day as president has thickened considerably with news that an official plane he has used in the past is due to fly to Scotland the day before Joe Biden’s inauguration.

Trump himself is sticking to his refusal to accept his decisive electoral defeat. He has been caught cajoling election officials to “find” thousands of extra votes and is encouraging his supporters to gather for a “wild” day of protest on Wednesday when Congress is due to ratify the result.

The White House has refused to say what he will do when Biden is inaugurated on 20 January, raising the question of whether Trump will even leave the building voluntarily.

Most Trump-watchers expect him to dodge any event that would involve acknowledging his election loss. They predict he will stage a spectacular diversion to detract from Biden’s first day on the job.

Many versions of that scenario have the outgoing president flying to his private club in Florida, Mar-a-Lago. But Scotland’s Sunday Post has reported that Prestwick airport, near Trump’s Turnberry golf course resort, has been told to expect a US military Boeing 757 that has occasionally been used by Trump, on 19 January.

The report said that speculation over a possible inauguration day drama has been fuelled by sightings of US military surveillance aircraft circling Turnberry for a week in November, doing possible advance work.

“It is usually a sign Trump is going to be somewhere for an extended period,” the Post quoted an unnamed source as saying.

The 757 is a smaller, narrower plane than the Boeing 747-200Bs that are normally designated Air Force One. It is more often used by the vice-president and first lady, Melania Trump, than the president.

There was no immediate response to requests for comment from the White House or Prestwick airport.

Leaving the country before formally leaving office would be unprecedented for a US president.

Flying to Scotland before 20 January would be a way to get US taxpayers to pay for the first leg of a post-presidential holiday. It is also possible the flight was booked as a contingency by a candidate surprised by defeat and unsure what to do.

Multiple reports suggest he will face severe difficulties in his heavily indebted business empire.

New accounts published on Monday showed Trump’s array of golf properties in Scotland lost £3.4m in 2019, though Trump Turnberry showed a modest profit.


Meanwhile his neighbours at Mar-a-Lago have launched a legal effort to stop him moving there full-time, saying he is precluded by an agreement he signed in the early 1990s converting the estate from a private residence to a club.

Wherever Trump goes on 20 January, it is unlikely the exit will be quiet or particularly dignified. But it will be unlike any presidential departure the country has ever witnessed.

Monday, January 04, 2021

Today's Pix

click





















Kelly Loeffler's Basketball team












Call It What It Is

There's hope when the Press Poodles start to get a little consistent in their 💯-ness, committing deliberate acts of journalism.

WaPo: (Margaret Sullivan - pay wall)

You hear the word “radical” a lot these days. It’s usually aimed like a lethal weapon at Democratic office-seekers, especially those who want to unseat a Republican incumbent. Sen. Kelly Loeffler, the Georgia Republican, rarely utters her challenger’s name without branding him as “radical liberal Raphael Warnock.”

Such is the upside-down world we’ve come to inhabit. These days, the true radicals are the enablers of President Trump’s ongoing attempted coup: the media bloviators on Fox News, One America and Newsmax who parrot his lies about election fraud; and the members of Congress who plan to object on Wednesday to what should be a pro forma step of approving the electoral college results, so that President-elect Joe Biden can take office peacefully on Jan. 20.

But instead of being called what they are, these media and political figures get a mild label: conservative.

News outlets that traffic in conspiracy theories? They’re branded as “conservative.” Politicians who are willing to bring down democracy to appease a cult leader? (“Acting on the basis either of fear of the president or sheer political opportunism,” as The Post’s Dan Balz explained.) Just a bloc of “conservatives.”

As the Hill put it in a typical headline Monday: “Cotton breaks with conservative colleagues who will oppose electoral vote.”

In applying this innocuous-sounding description, the reality-based media does the public a terrible disservice. Instead of calling out the truth, it normalizes; it softens the dangerous edges.

It makes it seem, well, not so bad. Conservative, after all, describes politics devoted to free enterprise and traditional ideas.

But that’s simply false. Sean Hannity is not conservative. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama are not conservative. Nor are the other 10 (at last count) senators who plan to object.

“There is nothing conservative about subverting democracy,” wrote Tim Alberta, the author and Politico correspondent. He suggests “far right” as an alternative descriptor.

Not bad. But I’d take it a step further, because it’s important to be precise. I’d call them members of the radical right.

My high school Latin comes in handy here: “Radical” derives from the concept of pulling something up by the roots, which seems to be exactly what these political and media types seem bent on doing to democratic norms.

The dictionary definition says radical means “advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs.”

Bingo.

Members of the radical right won’t like this, of course. They soak in the word “conservative” like a warm bath. Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan — extreme even among the extremists — leans heavily on the word in his official bio. (“Jordan served as Chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, the largest caucus of conservatives, advancing conservative ideas and solutions on Capitol Hill.”)

To its credit, Jordan’s home-state Cleveland.com avoids the word as it detailed his recent activities in a news story: “A vocal backer of President Donald Trump’s re-election, Jordan also attended rallies in Pennsylvania to claim the election was being ‘stolen’ from Trump, and … signed onto a Supreme Court brief to back a lawsuit that Texas filed to throw out election results from Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia.”

The language problem here points to a larger, more troubling issue: The radicalism of the right has been normalized. It’s been going on, and building, for decades. Don’t worry, this mind-set reassures, it’s all fine. There are different ways of looking at the world, liberal and conservative, and they are about equal.

That, of course, is misleading hooey.

Heather Cox Richardson, a history professor at Boston College, used a more precise phrase as she recently assessed what has transpired over many decades to culminate in today’s election denialism: This is “the final, logical step of Movement Conservatism: denying the legitimacy of anyone who does not share their ideology. This is unprecedented.” She called it “a profound attack on our democracy” and predicted that it wouldn’t succeed.

“This tent that used to be sort of ‘far-right extremists’ has gotten a lot broader,” Georgetown law professor Mary McCord, a former federal prosecutor who oversaw terrorism cases, told NPR. Now, the line between fringe extremists and mainstream Republican politics and right-leaning media is so blurred as to be almost meaningless.

Too much of the reality-based media has gone along for the ride, worried about accusations of leftist bias, wanting desperately to be seen as neutral, unwilling to be clear about how lopsided these sides are.

On Jan. 20, we can still presume, Trump will be gone from the White House. But his enablers and the movement that fostered him, and that he built up, will remain. That’s troubling.

We should take one small but symbolic step toward repairing the damage by using the right words to describe it. It would be a start.

I give you shit when you earn shit
I pay off in cookies when you earn cookies

Turnabout


Republicans got up a head of steam in the 80s with Reagan pimping the myth: "Government is the problem."

Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich fanned the flames of "get big government off our backs", and turned it into: "We just wanna make the government small enough to drown it in the bathtub."

Of course, over time, voters started to realize GOP policies were actually all about coddling their wealthy benefactors and fucking over normal people to pay for all the goodies being delivered to the fat cats.

So Republican strategy evolved naturally into what is now the standard play - 
  1. Fuck something up
  2. Point at it and say, "Oh look - that's fucked up"
  3. Campaign on how fucked up it is, saying only you can fix it
But they can't afford to fix anything for fear of either working themselves out of a job or exposing their own rhetoric for the pack of lies that it is, so they have to go on sabotaging everything in sight in order to perpetuate the myth that they created.

Or maybe Nancy MacLean is right and the GOP is embarked on the project of tearing down all our traditions of democratic self-governance in order to replace it with full blown plutocracy.

Whatever the reasons; whatever the motivations; whatever the pathways - Republicans have brought us to this place - Republicans have fucked it all up (deliberately, IMO) - so the only conclusion that makes sense to me is that Republicans are the fucking problem.

Maybe we'll see some kind of reckoning, but while I'm always hopeful, I'll keep my powder dry just the same.

NYT: (pay wall)

Republicans Begin New Congress Feuding Over Bid to Overturn Election

With President Trump ratcheting up his efforts to cling to power, the party has split over whether to back him, posing a major political test.

After four years of enabling and appeasing President Trump, Republicans find themselves at the end of his tenure in exactly the place they had so desperately tried to avoid: a toxic internecine brawl over his conduct and character that could badly damage their party.

With their Senate power on the line in Georgia in two days, Republicans entered the new Congress on Sunday bitterly divided over the basic question of whether to acknowledge the reality that Mr. Trump had lost the election, or to abet his unjustified and increasingly brazen attempts to overturn the results.

The extraordinary conflict among congressional Republicans reflects the dilemma they face after four years of acquiescence to Mr. Trump’s whims and silence in the face of his most outrageous actions. Now that the president has escalated his demands to subvert an election, they are confronting a litmus test involving democracy itself, keenly aware that many voters could punish them for failing to back Mr. Trump.

The rift has thrust Republicans — who typically try to minimize their differences in public — into an intramural battle more pronounced than any other of the Trump era before what would normally be a routine joint session on Wednesday to certify President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory. Top party officials, including the top two Senate leaders and the No. 3 House Republican, quietly pushed back against what all sides conceded would be a futile effort — though one that has the backing of a growing segment of the party — to reject the results.

Others spoke out publicly against the instigators of the move to invalidate Mr. Biden’s win, accusing them of putting political ambition before the nation’s interest.

“Efforts to reject the votes of the Electoral College and sow doubt about Joe Biden’s victory strike at the foundation of our Republic,” Paul D. Ryan, the former House speaker and Republican from Wisconsin, said in a statement on Sunday. “It is difficult to conceive of a more anti-democratic and anti-conservative act than a federal intervention to overturn the results of state-certified elections and disenfranchise millions of Americans.”

Representative Liz Cheney, the third-ranking Republican, circulated a lengthy memo calling the move “exceptionally dangerous.”

As the clash unfolded, newly disclosed recordings of Mr. Trump trying to pressure state officials in Georgia to reverse his loss there reflected how intent he was on finding enough votes to cling to power and what little regard he had for the fortunes of his party, whose Senate majority hangs on the outcome of two runoffs in the state on Tuesday.

That right there is 9 kinds of fucked up

During the conversation on Saturday, a recording of which was obtained earlier by The Washington Post, Mr. Trump never mentioned Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, except to threaten Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, that if he failed to find more votes for the president by Tuesday, “you’re going to have people just not voting” in the runoff contests. Mr. Trump is scheduled to campaign in the state on Monday.

Most Republicans were mum on Sunday about the revelations, though Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, a frequent critic of Mr. Trump, called it “absolutely appalling.”

“To every member of Congress considering objecting to the election results, you cannot — in light of this — do so with a clean conscience,” Mr. Kinzinger wrote on Twitter, appending the hashtag #RestoreOurGOP.

Beyond Georgia, the Republican dilemma had implications for the ability of party members to work with one another and a new Democratic White House after Jan. 20, for Republicans on the midterm ballot in 2022 and for the party’s presidential field in 2024.

It was a situation that Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader for at least a few more days, had assiduously sought to avoid.

He has worked feverishly to maneuver his party around Mr. Trump’s outbursts and outrages since January 2017, hoping to reap the political and policy benefits of having a mercurial ally in the White House without having to pay too high a price. The bargain delivered him a personal legacy of 234 conservative judges along with business-friendly federal policies prized by Republicans. Mr. McConnell even delayed the traditional recognition of the presidential winner — a man he has known for decades and considers a friend — to mollify Mr. Trump until it became untenable with the initial tally of electoral votes on Dec. 14.

It was still not enough for Mr. Trump, who made clear that he expected Republicans to join him first in sowing doubt about the election results and ultimately in moving to overturn them.

In a pointed challenge to Mr. McConnell’s influence and authority at the outset of Congress, a dozen Senate Republicans rejected his plea to not contest the tabulating of the electoral votes in the House on Wednesday. They announced that they would join scores of House Republicans in challenging the electoral count, forcing members of their party to side with either Mr. Trump or Mr. Biden in a move that is almost certain to fail even as it sows deep discord. Among those planning to try to reverse the count were four incoming Republican senators whose first official act was to announce that they would challenge the integrity of the vote that brought them to Washington.

“I think the people of Kansas feel disenfranchised, and they want us to follow through on the many irregularities they saw,” said Senator-elect Roger Marshall, Republican of Kansas. “We want our day in court.”

Judges across the country, and a Supreme Court with a conservative majority, have rejected nearly 60 attempts by Mr. Trump and his allies to challenge the results.

And not every lawmaker viewed as potentially open to the effort to overturn the results has joined. On Sunday night, Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, announced that he would support counting the electoral votes, though he also favored a commission to study the integrity of the election. “The founders entrusted our elections chiefly to the states — not Congress,” he said in a statement. “They entrusted the election of our president to the people, acting through the Electoral College — not Congress. And they entrusted the adjudication of election disputes to the courts — not Congress.”

The looming showdown over the electoral votes, along with attendance restrictions because of the coronavirus pandemic, cast a pall over the first day of the new Congress, typically a celebratory affair with throngs of family and friends packing the hallways and spectator galleries for the swearing-in of new members and celebrations around Capitol Hill. Instead, in an unusual weekend session that was the first time a new Congress had convened on a Sunday, the Capitol was quiet as the dispute over the election hung over the opening proceedings and dashed any hope for a fresh start in 2021.

In her 21-page memo, Ms. Cheney refuted allegations of widespread election irregularities, recounted the litany of court findings against the president and warned fellow Republicans that they were making a serious mistake.

“Such objections set an exceptionally dangerous precedent, threatening to steal states’ explicit constitutional responsibility for choosing the president and bestowing it instead on Congress,” her memo said. “This is directly at odds with the Constitution’s clear text and our core beliefs as Republicans.”

“It undermines the public’s faith in the integrity of our elections,” warned Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, who was sworn in for a fifth term on Sunday.

Other Republicans said the call by senators challenging the election for a special commission to “audit” results in swing states within 10 days was ill-conceived and unworkable.

“Proposing a commission at this late date — which has zero chance of becoming reality — is not effectively fighting for President Trump,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a top ally of the president. He said those disputing the election results would have “a high bar to clear” in persuading him to back them.

But those planning to try to upend Mr. Biden’s victory said they were exercising their independence and acting in the interests of constituents who were demanding answers to questions raised by Mr. Trump and his allies about election malfeasance — charges that have been widely dismissed.

“There are lots of folks in my state that still want those answers to come out,” said Senator James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, who pointed to “all these different questions that are hanging out there.”

He and other Republicans said they were acting no differently than Democrats had in 2005, when then-Senator Barbara Boxer of California challenged electors for President George W. Bush. But in that case, John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, had conceded and was not actively instigating efforts to reverse the results.

Republicans trying to hold their majority with victories in Georgia were particularly worried about the risks the fight might hold for their candidates facing voters in two years, when incumbent Republicans such as Senators Roy Blunt of Missouri, Rob Portman of Ohio and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska could face primary challenges from the right if they refuse to support the attempt to overturn the election. Given the Democratic majority in the House and the fact that enough Republicans have made clear that they would join Democrats in holding off the challenge in the Senate, Mr. McConnell and others view the effort to bolster the president as both risky and doomed to failure.

In opening the new session of the Senate, Mr. McConnell did not directly address the fight, but he alluded to it, conceding that there were “plenty of disagreements and policy differences among our ranks.”

Democrats were watching the unfolding spectacle with outrage and a sense of foreboding over the future implications. But they expressed certainty of the outcome.

“Look, they can do whatever they want,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader. “On Jan. 20, Joe Biden will be president and Kamala Harris will be vice president no matter what they try to do.”

“I think they are hurting themselves and hurting the democracy,” he added, “all to try to please somebody who has no fidelity to elections or even the truth.”

COVID-19 Update

World
  • New Cases:   510,124 (⬆︎ .61%)
  • New Deaths:      7,138 (⬆︎ .39%)
USA
  • New Cases:   194,337 (⬆︎ .96%)
  • New Deaths:      1,387 (⬆︎ .40%)



NYT: (pay wall)

How Does the Coronavirus Variant Spread? Here’s What Scientists Know

Contagiousness is the hallmark of the mutated virus surfacing in the U.S. and more than a dozen other countries.

A more contagious form of the coronavirus has begun circulating in the United States.

In Britain, where it was first identified, the new variant became the predominant form of the coronavirus in just three months, accelerating that nation’s surge and filling its hospitals. It may do the same in the United States, exacerbating an unrelenting rise in deaths and overwhelming the already strained health care system, experts warned.

A variant that spreads more easily also means that people will need to religiously adhere to precautions like social distancing, mask-wearing, hand hygiene and improved ventilation — unwelcome news to many Americans already chafing against restrictions.

“The bottom line is that anything we do to reduce transmission will reduce transmission of any variants, including this one,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist affiliated with Georgetown University. But “it may mean that the more targeted measures that are not like a full lockdown won’t be as effective.”

What does it mean for this variant to be more transmissible? What makes this variant more contagious than previous iterations of the virus? And why should we worry about a variant that spreads more easily but does not seem to make anyone sicker?

We asked experts to weigh in on the evolving research into this new version of the coronavirus.

The new variant seems to spread more easily between people.

Many variants of the coronavirus have cropped up since the pandemic began. But all evidence so far suggests that the new mutant, called B.1.1.7, is more transmissible than previous forms. It first surfaced in September in Britain, but already accounts for more than 60 percent of new cases in London and neighboring areas.

The new variant seems to infect more people than earlier versions of the coronavirus, even when the environments are the same. It’s not clear what gives the variant this advantage, although there are indications that it may infect cells more efficiently.

It’s also difficult to say exactly how much more transmissible the new variant may be, because scientists have not yet done the kind of lab experiments that are required. Most of the conclusions have been drawn from epidemiological observations, and “there’s so many possible biases in all the available data,” cautioned Muge Cevik, an infectious disease expert at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and a scientific adviser to the British government.

Scientists initially estimated that the new variant was 70 percent more transmissible, but a recent modeling study pegged that number at 56 percent. Once researchers sift through all the data, it’s possible that the variant will turn out to be just 10 to 20 percent more transmissible, said Trevor Bedford, an evolutionary biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

Even so, Dr. Bedford said, it is likely to catch on rapidly and become the predominant form in the United States by March. Scientists like Dr. Bedford are tracking all the known variants closely to detect any further changes that might alter their behavior.

Apart from greater transmissibility, the variant behaves like earlier versions.

The new mutant virus may spread more easily, but in every other way it seems little different than its predecessors.

So far, at least, the variant does not seem to make people any sicker or lead to more deaths. Still, there is cause for concern: A variant that is more transmissible will increase the death toll simply because it will spread faster and infect more people.

“In that sense, it’s just a numbers game,” Dr. Rasmussen said. The effect will be amplified “in places like the U.S. and the U.K., where the health care system is really at its breaking point.”

The routes of transmission — by large and small droplets, and tiny aerosolized particles adrift in crowded indoor spaces — have not changed. That means masks, limiting time with others and improving ventilation in indoor spaces will all help contain the variant’s spread, as these measures do with other variants of the virus.

“By minimizing your exposure to any virus, you’re going to reduce your risk of getting infected, and that’s going to reduce transmission over all,” Dr. Rasmussen said.

Infection with the new variant may increase the amount of virus in the body.

Some preliminary evidence from Britain suggests that people infected with the new variant tend to carry greater amounts of the virus in their noses and throats than those infected with previous versions.

“We’re talking in the range between 10-fold greater and 10,000-fold greater,” said Michael Kidd, a clinical virologist at Public Health England and a clinical adviser to the British government who has studied the phenomenon.

There are other explanations for the finding — Dr. Kidd and his colleagues did not have access to information about when in their illness people were tested, for example, which could affect their so-called viral loads.

Still, the finding does offer one possible explanation for why the new variant spreads more easily. The more virus that infected people harbor in their noses and throats, the more they expel into the air and onto surfaces when they breathe, talk, sing, cough or sneeze.

As a result, situations that expose people to the virus carry a greater chance of seeding new infections. Some new data indicate that people infected with the new variant spread the virus to more of their contacts.

With previous versions of the virus, contact tracing suggested that about 10 percent of people who have close contact with an infected person — within six feet for at least 15 minutes — inhaled enough virus to become infected.

“With the variant, we might expect 15 percent of those,” Dr. Bedford said. “Currently risky activities become more risky.”

Scientists are still learning how the mutations have changed the virus.

The variant has 23 mutations, compared with the version that erupted in Wuhan, China, a year ago. But 17 of those mutations appeared suddenly, after the virus diverged from its most recent ancestor.

Each infected person is a crucible, offering opportunities for the virus to mutate as it multiplies. With more than 83 million people infected worldwide, the coronavirus is amassing mutations faster than scientists expected at the start of the pandemic.

The vast majority of mutations provide no advantage to the virus and die out. But mutations that improve the virus’s fitness or transmissibility have a greater chance to catch on.

At least one of the 17 new mutations in the variant contributes to its greater contagiousness. The mechanism is not yet known. Some data suggest that the new variant may bind more tightly to a protein on the surface of human cells, allowing it to more readily infect them.

It’s possible that the variant blooms in an infected person’s nose and throat, but not in the lungs, for example — which may explain why patients spread it more easily but do not develop illnesses more severe than those caused by earlier versions of the virus. Some influenza viruses behave similarly, experts noted.

“We need to look at this evidence as preliminary and accumulating,” Dr. Cevik said of the growing data on the new variant.

Still, the research so far suggests an urgent need to cut down on transmission of the variant, she added: “We need to be much more careful over all, and look at the gaps in our mitigation measures.”

Sunday, January 03, 2021

Today's Commentary

Joel Haver - Hear Me Out


I have no sympathy for comics like Joe Rogan and Bill Maher when they spend any time at all bitchin' about "how sensitive everybody is" and how hard it is for them now when they run up against the cultural resistance to their style of humor.

Wanna know about censorship and the hazards of performing in an atmosphere of repression and narrow-mindedness? Ask Lenny Bruce or Redd Foxx or Mort Saul or or or.

Fighting restrictive norms and pushing the social envelope - that's what comics do, ya buncha fuckin' cry-babies. Get to work.

Results

Scott Atlas and Rand Paul and everybody else who stupidly and enthusiastically endorsed a policy of "let 'er rip so we can get to herd immunity real fast" - along with all the idiotic MAGA rubes supporting that shit on social media - need to be told to go fuck themselves at least 4 or 5 times a day for a very long time.

This just in, via News.Com.AU:

Sweden crisis worsens after its anti-lockdown stance proven a failure

It’s a grim time of year to be living in Sweden.

Winter days are typically short in Scandinavia, but Stockholm was so dark in early December that through the first 10 days it had yet to log a single hour of sunlight, according to the country’s meteorological institute.

At this time of year the sun only rises above the horizon for about six hours a day in the Swedish capital, but during December it was especially gloomy.

On one day, the sun rose at 8.33am and set again just after 2pm, according to AFP. During that day, it was covered by thick clouds.

The atmosphere outdoors is a mirror to the bleak situation the country is facing during a spike in cases it hoped to avoid by taking its own unique course through the COVID-19 pandemic – a course we now know was doomed to fail from the beginning.

In mid-December, it was revealed that Sweden had not only failed to defeat the virus through its herd-immunity strategy – a strategy that divided leaders around the world – but that its healthcare system was being crippled by a surge in patient numbers.

According to Bloomberg, Sweden is currently facing a shortage of healthcare workers and being forced to consider outside help from its neighbours in Finland.

Sineva Ribeiro, the chairwoman of the Swedish Association of Health Professionals, said the situation is “terrible”.

And Stockholm County Mayor Irene Svenonius called it “extremely tense”.

“There’s fatigue. You can’t ignore that, so it’s extremely important to get more people,” she said.

Finland offered to free up space in its hospitals for ICU patients from Sweden but there was no deal struck immediately.

Sweden already has one of the highest death rates in Europe. Of its 10 million people, around 8300 had died from COVID-19 by late December.

Stockholm’s healthcare director Bjorn Eriksson said: “This is exactly the development we didn’t want to see.

“It shows that we Stockholmers have crowded too much, and have had too much contact outside of the households we live in.”

The nation’s casual response included leaving Swedes to determine for themselves whether they should wear masks or socially distance.

It was in keeping with the country’s relaxed approach where strict rules are replaced by encouragement to do the right thing.

David Steadson, a former epidemiologist from the University of Queensland, has called Sweden home for 20 years.

He told news.com.au earlier in the year that the country was suffering because it refused to take the pandemic as seriously as its neighbours had.

Mr Steadson, who himself became infected in March and is still suffering from COVID-19 symptoms including shortness of breath, said he was shocked by the reaction from doctors when he was first diagnosed.

“Having suspected I had COVID-19, I was told not to even go to the doctor for fear of infecting health staff,” he said.

Mr Steadson said what was perhaps even more concerning was the portrayal of the virus in Sweden’s media.

“Media outlets seem more concerned with protecting Sweden’s image than they do in reporting the facts, and challenging the authorities over some of the frankly outrageous statements they make is left almost entirely to foreign journalists,” he said.

Dr Nick Talley, editor-in-chief of the Medical Journal of Australia, said the Swedish model had been a failure.

“In my view, the Swedish model has not been a success, at least to date,” he told news.com.au.

“One clear goal at least early on was [to] reach herd immunity – but this was not achieved, not even close, and this was arguably predictable.

“There were restrictions put in place but the philosophy was voluntary rather than compulsory. There is evidence there was a major impact of this voluntary lockdown on behaviour as reflected in, for example, reduced mobility and spending. However the spread of COVID-19 and the death rate was substantially higher in Sweden compared with its neighbours who mandated lockdowns.

“A major contributor to the failure of the voluntary approach was spread of infection into homes for the elderly. Young people also appear to have been the least likely to alter their behaviour which may have contributed to community spread.”

(Note: this is not a recent pic - just Sen Paul getting a booster)

Today's Thought

The big take-away on this pandemic thing is that Americans are ill-suited and unprepared when the main requirement for survival is a simple regard for the health and safety of others.