alternet--2020-12-15--Bipartisan relief package includes plan to retroactively immunize corporations from coronavirus laws

Bipartisan relief package includes plan to retroactively immunize corporations from coronavirus lawsuits

One piece of a bipartisan Covid-19 relief package unveiled late Monday would give corporations sweeping and retroactive immunity from coronavirus-related lawsuits , a top Republican priority that civil rights groups , labor unions , and small business owners have decried as a green light for companies to endanger their employees and customers .
A summary ( pdf ) of the proposed corporate liability protections—which the bipartisan group has attached to much-needed funding for state and local governments—says that employers would not be `` subject to liability under federal employment law in Covid-19 exposure cases or change in working conditions related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to conform to public health standards and guidance . ''
Companies would only be liable in cases of `` gross negligence . ''
The protections , according to the summary , would be retroactive to December 2019 and last until `` one year after enactment '' or `` the end of the coronavirus public health emergency '' —whichever comes later .
The proposal would also empower the U.S. attorney general to `` investigate and bring a civil action '' against lawyers for sending `` meritless demand letters '' on behalf of clients exposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday , the summary language `` tracks closely '' with the liability shield proposed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) and Sen. John Cornyn ( R-Texas ) , who have warned of an `` epidemic '' of coronavirus-related lawsuits that has not materialized .
`` The slightly watered-down lawsuit ban would still trump labor laws and stifle OSHA enforcement , '' noted HuffPost 's Arthur Delaney .
The bipartisan group has yet to fully reach an agreement on the details of the liability protections , but several Democrats involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , Joe Manchin ( D-W.Va. ) and Jeanne Shaheen ( D-N.H. ) —have reportedly indicated a willingness to accept GOP demands .
Rep. Josh Gottheimer ( D-N.J. ) said Monday that `` some tweaks on liability and worker protection '' are needed to reach a deal .
Debbie Berkowitz , director of the Worker Safety and Health program at the National Employment Law Project , warned during a press call Monday that , if passed , corporate liability protections would `` lead to more illness and death . ''
The Daily Poster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and David Sirota reported early Tuesday that draft liability legislation circulating on Capitol Hill would `` shield employers and healthcare industry executives from legal consequences when their business decisions injure or kill workers , customers , and patients during the Covid-19 outbreak . ''
The draft , according to The Daily Poster , includes a provision that would `` restrict the enforcement of longstanding laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 , the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when companies say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' coronavirus guidance . ''
The legislation would also `` shield healthcare executives from lawsuits through language copied word-for-word from a statute passed in New York by Democratic Gov .
Andrew Cuomo amid a spate of Covid deaths in that state 's nursing homes . ''
Michael Duff , a former National Labor Relations Board official , told The Daily Poster that the draft legislation would have the effect of `` substantially immunizing businesses from risky conduct . ''
`` What they want to do in this bill is throw every lawsuit out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' said Duff .
`` It means that a judge has the authority to dismiss a case right upfront .
Because there 's no way that plaintiffs are going to be able to meet this standard—gross negligence . ''
It is unclear whether the liability protections will make their way into any final coronavirus relief package .
McConnell , who has described corporate immunity provisions as his `` red line , '' has proposed dropping both the liability shield and aid to state and local governments—a suggestion that House Majority Leader Steny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be able to stomach , despite the importance of state and local aid .
In addition to the package with liability protections and state and local aid , the bipartisan group late Monday also released a $ 748 billion bill that includes key priorities such as an extension of emergency unemployment programs , funding for nutrition and rental assistance , and money for vaccine distribution .
Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) immediately rejected the bipartisan offer as `` totally inadequate '' and urged Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its omission of direct payments to economically desperate Americans .
`` Congress can not go home for the Christmas holidays until we pass legislation which provides a $ 1,200 direct payment to working class adults , $ 2,400 for couples , and a $ 500 payment to their children , '' Sanders said in a statement .
`` This is what Democrats and Republicans did unanimously in March through the CARES Act .
This is what we have to do today . ''

One piece of a bipartisan Covid-19 relief package unveiled late Monday would give corporations sweeping and retroactive immunity from coronavirus-related lawsuits, a top Republican priority that civil rights groups, labor unions, and small business owners have decried as a green light for companies to endanger their employees and customers.
A summary (pdf) of the proposed corporate liability protections—which the bipartisan group has attached to much-needed funding for state and local governments—says that employers would not be "subject to liability under federal employment law in Covid-19 exposure cases or change in working conditions related to Covid-19 if the employer was trying to conform to public health standards and guidance." Companies would only be liable in cases of "gross negligence."
The protections, according to the summary, would be retroactive to December 2019 and last until "one year after enactment" or "the end of the coronavirus public health emergency"—whichever comes later. The proposal would also empower the U.S. attorney general to "investigate and bring a civil action" against lawyers for sending "meritless demand letters" on behalf of clients exposed to Covid-19.
As HuffPostreported late Monday, the summary language "tracks closely" with the liability shield proposed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who have warned of an "epidemic" of coronavirus-related lawsuits that has not materialized.
"The slightly watered-down lawsuit ban would still trump labor laws and stifle OSHA enforcement," notedHuffPost's Arthur Delaney.
The bipartisan group has yet to fully reach an agreement on the details of the liability protections, but several Democrats involved in the negotiations—Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)—have reportedly indicated a willingness to accept GOP demands.
Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) said Monday that "some tweaks on liability and worker protection" are needed to reach a deal.
Debbie Berkowitz, director of the Worker Safety and Health program at the National Employment Law Project, warned during a press call Monday that, if passed, corporate liability protections would "lead to more illness and death."
The Daily Poster's Andrew Perez, Julia Rock, and David Sirota reported early Tuesday that draft liability legislation circulating on Capitol Hill would "shield employers and healthcare industry executives from legal consequences when their business decisions injure or kill workers, customers, and patients during the Covid-19 outbreak."
The draft, according to TheDaily Poster, includes a provision that would "restrict the enforcement of longstanding laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when companies say they are attempting to comply with governments' coronavirus guidance."
The legislation would also "shield healthcare executives from lawsuits through language copied word-for-word from a statute passed in New York by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo amid a spate of Covid deaths in that state's nursing homes."
Michael Duff, a former National Labor Relations Board official, told The Daily Poster that the draft legislation would have the effect of "substantially immunizing businesses from risky conduct."
"What they want to do in this bill is throw every lawsuit out before it conceivably gets to a jury," said Duff. "It means that a judge has the authority to dismiss a case right upfront. Because there's no way that plaintiffs are going to be able to meet this standard—gross negligence."
It is unclear whether the liability protections will make their way into any final coronavirus relief package. McConnell, who has described corporate immunity provisions as his "red line," has proposed dropping both the liability shield and aid to state and local governments—a suggestion that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Democrats may be able to stomach, despite the importance of state and local aid.
In addition to the package with liability protections and state and local aid, the bipartisan group late Monday also released a $748 billion bill that includes key priorities such as an extension of emergency unemployment programs, funding for nutrition and rental assistance, and money for vaccine distribution.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) immediately rejected the bipartisan offer as "totally inadequate" and urged Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to do so as well, citing its omission of direct payments to economically desperate Americans.
"Congress cannot go home for the Christmas holidays until we pass legislation which provides a $1,200 direct payment to working class adults, $2,400 for couples, and a $500 payment to their children," Sanders said in a statement. "This is what Democrats and Republicans did unanimously in March through the CARES Act. This is what we have to do today."


alternet--2020-12-15--Kelly Loeffler's campaign condemns photo with longtime KKK member convicted of beating a Black man

Sen. Kelly Loeffler , the unelected multimillionaire Georgia Republican facing a critical runoff election in January , says she had `` no idea '' that the supporter she recently posed for a selfie with is a former Ku Klux Klan leader .
`` Kelly had no idea who that was , and if she had she would have kicked him out immediately because we condemn in the most vociferous terms everything that he stands for , '' Stephen Lawson , a Loeffler campaign spokesperson , told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Sunday .
At a Friday campaign event , Loeffler posed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a violent former Klansman with longstanding ties to neo-Nazi groups .
The picture with Loeffler was captioned : `` Kelly [ Loeffler ] and I .
Save America , stop Socialism ! ''
While Loeffler 's campaign now denies it knew about Doles background before the senator smiled for a picture by his side , the photo drew swift backlash amid the heated Senate runoff that pits Loeffler against Democratic Rev .
Raphael Warnock , the Black pastor of Ebenezer Baptist , Martin Luther King Jr 's old church in Atlanta .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warnock hit the appointed senator for her record on race .
`` She used her enormous privilege and power as a United States senator to pick a fight with the Black women on her team , '' he said .
`` She says she is against racism , and that racism has no place .
But she welcomed the support of a QAnon conspiracy theorist , and she sat down with a white supremacist for an interview , '' he added , apparently in reference to Rep.-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene , R-Ga. , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Posobiec .
For his part , Doles told the Associated Press that he had `` publicly renounced racism on several occasions in the past couple of years . ''
He added that he had attended a `` redemption service , '' where he stood `` in front of an all-Black congregation and told my story and renounced all racism and asked for God 's forgiveness . ''
A former imperial wizard for the Territorial Klans of America , a KKK chapter based out of the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Virginia , Doles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview that he was a fifth-generation Klansman and that Nazism was `` my religion . ''
`` I definitely follow the Nazis .
National Socialism is my religion , '' Doles said at the time .
`` I believe in it and I look for the Fourth Reich . ''
His history with white supremacism has been violent .
In 1993 , Doles was sentenced to prison after pleading guilty to beating a Black man nearly to death in Maryland .
Doles attacked the Black man because he had been riding in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He had been charged with a hate crime , but prosecutors dropped it because of a recent constitutional challenge to that law in the state .
Doles also has ties to Hammerskin Nation , which the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as the `` best organized , most widely dispersed and most dangerous Skinhead group '' with a `` relatively sophisticated political outlook . ''
`` Not only are we in a Race struggle , but we 're in a Class struggle as well , '' advises one of the group 's publications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right-wingers .
.
.
have failed to acknowledge .
This is something we will continue to stress !
We will continue to focus on race and economics .
.
.
Avoid the Nationalists , Capitalists , Marxists , Left/Right , and Judeo-christian rhetoric , and labor with a Race First motto . ''
In 2017 , Doles marched at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville with the Hammerskin Nation .
That same year he pleaded to assault charges stemming from a barroom brawl where he had smashed a woman 's head into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Two years later , after supposedly renouncing racism , Doles created a new group in support of President Donald Trump called American Patriots USA , which has known and extensive ties to neo-Nazis and the far-right militia movement .
At some point Doles was banned by Facebook , so he promotes the group on VK , a Russian online haven for white nationalists barred from American social media platforms .
Before Loeffler , multiple Republican candidates in Georgia drew fire for appearing with Doles .
In the spring , Georgia state Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Doles after speaking at an event hosted by American Patriots USA .
And congresswoman-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene , an adherent of the fanatical QAnon conspiracy theory , posed for a photo with Doles under an American Patriots USA banner .
The AJC reported in the spring that Greene 's campaign did not respond when asked about that photo , instead calling the questions `` silly and the same type of sleazy attacks the Fake News Media levels against President Trump . ''
However , Greene later said Doles was `` not welcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having him removed from a campaign event in September .
`` Yes , I asked him to be removed .
He is not welcome at any events that I attend .
Period , '' she told the AJC .
`` I do n't know him and have no relationship with him .
He 's not a donor and has never worked for the campaign . ''
That September event also featured Loeffler .
Her campaign said at the time that the senator was not aware of Doles , and did not know about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event would have stirred .
On Sunday , Warnock , Loeffler 's Democratic rival in the upcoming runoff , cited that event when he dismissed her statement about the most recent photo .
`` While Kelly Loeffler runs a campaign based on dividing and misleading Georgians , she is once again trying to distance herself from someone who is a known white supremacist and former KKK leader who nearly beat a Black man to death , '' Warnock spokesperson Michael Brewer told The Post in a statement .
`` There 's no acceptable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone a second time . ''

Sen. Kelly Loeffler, the unelected multimillionaire Georgia Republican facing a critical runoff election in January, says she had "no idea" that the supporter she recently posed for a selfie with is a former Ku Klux Klan leader.
"Kelly had no idea who that was, and if she had she would have kicked him out immediately because we condemn in the most vociferous terms everything that he stands for," Stephen Lawson, a Loeffler campaign spokesperson, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Sunday. At a Friday campaign event, Loeffler posed for a photo with Chester Doles, a violent former Klansman with longstanding ties to neo-Nazi groups. The picture with Loeffler was captioned: "Kelly [Loeffler] and I. Save America, stop Socialism!"
While Loeffler's campaign now denies it knew about Doles background before the senator smiled for a picture by his side, the photo drew swift backlash amid the heated Senate runoff that pits Loeffler against Democratic Rev. Raphael Warnock, the Black pastor of Ebenezer Baptist, Martin Luther King Jr's old church in Atlanta. In a debate against Loeffler last week, Warnock hit the appointed senator for her record on race.
"She used her enormous privilege and power as a United States senator to pick a fight with the Black women on her team," he said. "She says she is against racism, and that racism has no place. But she welcomed the support of a QAnon conspiracy theorist, and she sat down with a white supremacist for an interview," he added, apparently in reference to Rep.-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and One American News Network host Jack Posobiec.
For his part, Doles told the Associated Press that he had "publicly renounced racism on several occasions in the past couple of years." He added that he had attended a "redemption service," where he stood "in front of an all-Black congregation and told my story and renounced all racism and asked for God's forgiveness."
A former imperial wizard for the Territorial Klans of America, a KKK chapter based out of the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Virginia, Doles told the Washington Post in a 1998 interview that he was a fifth-generation Klansman and that Nazism was "my religion."
"I definitely follow the Nazis. National Socialism is my religion," Doles said at the time. "I believe in it and I look for the Fourth Reich."
His history with white supremacism has been violent. In 1993, Doles was sentenced to prison after pleading guilty to beating a Black man nearly to death in Maryland. Doles attacked the Black man because he had been riding in a pickup truck with a white woman. He had been charged with a hate crime, but prosecutors dropped it because of a recent constitutional challenge to that law in the state.
Doles also has ties to Hammerskin Nation, which the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as the "best organized, most widely dispersed and most dangerous Skinhead group" with a "relatively sophisticated political outlook."
"Not only are we in a Race struggle, but we're in a Class struggle as well," advises one of the group's publications. "This is something the reactionary right-wingers . . . have failed to acknowledge. This is something we will continue to stress! We will continue to focus on race and economics. . . Avoid the Nationalists, Capitalists, Marxists, Left/Right, and Judeo-christian rhetoric, and labor with a Race First motto."
In 2017, Doles marched at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville with the Hammerskin Nation. That same year he pleaded to assault charges stemming from a barroom brawl where he had smashed a woman's head into a wall while fighting alongside the group.
Two years later, after supposedly renouncing racism, Doles created a new group in support of President Donald Trump called American Patriots USA, which has known and extensive ties to neo-Nazis and the far-right militia movement. At some point Doles was banned by Facebook, so he promotes the group on VK, a Russian online haven for white nationalists barred from American social media platforms.
Before Loeffler, multiple Republican candidates in Georgia drew fire for appearing with Doles. In the spring, Georgia state Rep. Matt Gurtler was forced to disavow connections to Doles after speaking at an event hosted by American Patriots USA. And congresswoman-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene, an adherent of the fanatical QAnon conspiracy theory, posed for a photo with Doles under an American Patriots USA banner.
The AJC reported in the spring that Greene's campaign did not respond when asked about that photo, instead calling the questions "silly and the same type of sleazy attacks the Fake News Media levels against President Trump."
However, Greene later said Doles was "not welcome at any events I attend" after having him removed from a campaign event in September.
"Yes, I asked him to be removed. He is not welcome at any events that I attend. Period," she told the AJC. "I don't know him and have no relationship with him. He's not a donor and has never worked for the campaign."
That September event also featured Loeffler. Her campaign said at the time that the senator was not aware of Doles, and did not know about the controversy that his attendance at the event would have stirred.
On Sunday, Warnock, Loeffler's Democratic rival in the upcoming runoff, cited that event when he dismissed her statement about the most recent photo.
"While Kelly Loeffler runs a campaign based on dividing and misleading Georgians, she is once again trying to distance herself from someone who is a known white supremacist and former KKK leader who nearly beat a Black man to death," Warnock spokesperson Michael Brewer told The Post in a statement. "There's no acceptable explanation for it happening once, let alone a second time."


alternet--2020-12-15--Can Kamala Harris neuter Moscow Mitch?

Can Kamala Harris neuter Moscow Mitch?

Could this be true : So does this mean VP Harris could break with tradition of preferential recognition and allow any Senator to bring the House 's bill up for debate and vote ?
While it wont change GOP votes , it will force them to vote down popular reforms rather than avoid such votes .
And can it force a vote on Biden 's nominees ?
If this is true , why did n't Biden force a vote on Garland when Joe was VP ?
I am offering this up to the Kos community in hope of a vigorous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is real and useful for undermining McConnell 's stranglehold if the runoffs do n't go our way .
Thanks UPDATE : Looking at the debate , I guess this is my question boiled down : The Constitution designates that the VP will preside over the Senate .
What does it mean to preside over the Senate ?
In Congress one asks to be recognized by the chair in order to speak .
The VP as President of the Senate is designated by the Constitution as the chair , right ?
Since 1937 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Majority Leader first in all cases , which effectively allows him to control the Senate .
What happens if the Chair decides to ignore this precedent and recogniz4e other Senators first ?
Senate rules can not remove a power granted by the Constitution .
If `` preside '' does not mean recognize people to speak , what does it mean ?

Could this be true:
Party leaders derive their power from the Senate's precedents, not its Standing Rules. Of the forty-four rules, only ten mention the majority and minority leaders. And those ten rules do not grant the leaders any real power vis-à-vis the rank-and-file…
Under the rules, all senators are essentially equal. That is, no senator is more powerful than another. However, the majority leader is clearly considered to be the most powerful senator today. This perception is based on his ability to make motions to proceed to legislation and nominations and to fill the so-called amendment tree (i.e. offer the maximum allowable number of amendments to legislation to block senators from offering their own amendments). Both are based on his ability to be recognized first by the Senate's Presiding Officer { soon to be Vice President Harris}. But the leader's preferential recognition and, by extension, his ability to make motions to proceed to bills and nominees and his ability to fill the amendment tree, are grounded only in precedent.
So does this mean VP Harris could break with tradition of preferential recognition and allow any Senator to bring the House's bill up for debate and vote? While it wont change GOP votes, it will force them to vote down popular reforms rather than avoid such votes. And can it force a vote on Biden's nominees? If this is true, why didn't Biden force a vote on Garland when Joe was VP?
I am offering this up to the Kos community in hope of a vigorous debate so I can figure out if this is real and useful for undermining McConnell's stranglehold if the runoffs don't go our way. Thanks
UPDATE: Looking at the debate, I guess this is my question boiled down:
The Constitution designates that the VP will preside over the Senate. What does it mean to preside over the Senate? In Congress one asks to be recognized by the chair in order to speak. The VP as President of the Senate is designated by the Constitution as the chair, right? Since 1937, the VP by tradition has recognized the Majority Leader first in all cases, which effectively allows him to control the Senate. What happens if the Chair decides to ignore this precedent and recogniz4e other Senators first? Senate rules cannot remove a power granted by the Constitution. If "preside" does not mean recognize people to speak, what does it mean?


alternet--2020-12-15--Trump cultists threaten to make America ungovernable by intimidating public servants out of jobs

While the arrival of vaccine doses is finally bringing some hopeful news about the pandemic , the state of U.S. democracy continues to be at an historic low point fueled by the complicity of the Republican Party .
The past week has included a rash of threats against public servants trying to fulfill their duties and uphold their oaths of office .
Nowhere was that more evident on Monday than in Michigan where the Capitol building was shut down to everyone but the 16 electors and others essential to certifying the state 's Electoral College vote after credible threats of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a police escort , but the atmosphere was so toxic , one elector ultimately decided to wear a bullet-proof vest to faithfully cast her vote for the state 's rightful winner , Joe Biden .
The situation in Michigan followed on a week in which a so-called `` enemies '' list of state and federal officials who were n't sufficiently loyal to Donald Trump surfaced on the internet , according to the Washington Post .
The list included the officials ' home addresses along with photos of them covered by red targets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ # NoQuarterForTraitors .
That sentiment bled into a weekend of protests turned violent from Washington State to Washington D.C. , with four people stabbed and another shot in Olympia while a series of altercations broke out in D.C. And it 's not just public officials who are being targeted .
The Georgia GOP election official who warned earlier this month that someone would wind up getting killed if Republicans did n't speak up outlined instances in which random citizens are getting caught in the crossfire .
`` We have people stalking outside of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' said Gabriel Sterling last Thursday .
`` We 've had a warehouse manager , he was simply taking trash out to the dumpster , and he had somebody follow him with a camera telling him he 's going to prison . ''
Hate crimes spiked across the country following Trump 's 2017 defense of white supremacists in Charlottesville as `` very fine people . ''
But Brian Levin , director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University at San Bernardino , told the Post threats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were then exacerbated by the onset of coronavirus restrictions .
`` The direction of the threats and intimidation against state and local officials took an eerie turn in the last couple of years and accelerated during the pandemic because aggrieved people are interacting with their government at the local level — in public health and elections , '' Levin said .
`` And those officials are the very ones labeled as legitimate targets for aggressions on cable news , social media and particularly by the president . ''
Following the spate of violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even want to serve in these positions anymore ?
`` There is an ugliness and cruelty in our national rhetoric that is reaching a fevered pitch here at home , and that should worry us all , '' said Diana Lachiondo , a local Idaho health official who was forced to flee a meeting last week about pandemic restrictions when menacing protesters showed up at her home .
Lachiondo , who recently lost reelection , added , `` I 'm out .
...
I 've got a light at the end of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to want to run in the future ?
Do you need to live in a gated community to feel like you 're safe ?
That is my concern going forward .
.
.
what does this mean for our democracy ? ''
One of her colleagues , physician Ted Epperly , agreed the problem is n't going away anytime soon .
`` I think it 'll take a lot of healing , quite frankly , to get us back to working together as a society , '' he told the Post .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this for years to come , '' he added .
`` What happened ?
What happened here in this country ?
Who are we as people ? ''

While the arrival of vaccine doses is finally bringing some hopeful news about the pandemic, the state of U.S. democracy continues to be at an historic low point fueled by the complicity of the Republican Party.
The past week has included a rash of threats against public servants trying to fulfill their duties and uphold their oaths of office. Nowhere was that more evident on Monday than in Michigan where the Capitol building was shut down to everyone but the 16 electors and others essential to certifying the state's Electoral College vote after credible threats of violence emerged. Each elector was provided with a police escort, but the atmosphere was so toxic, one elector ultimately decided to wear a bullet-proof vest to faithfully cast her vote for the state's rightful winner, Joe Biden.
The situation in Michigan followed on a week in which a so-called "enemies" list of state and federal officials who weren't sufficiently loyal to Donald Trump surfaced on the internet, according to the Washington Post. The list included the officials' home addresses along with photos of them covered by red targets and hashtags such as #remembertheirfaces and #NoQuarterForTraitors.
That sentiment bled into a weekend of protests turned violent from Washington State to Washington D.C., with four people stabbed and another shot in Olympia while a series of altercations broke out in D.C.
And it's not just public officials who are being targeted. The Georgia GOP election official who warned earlier this month that someone would wind up getting killed if Republicans didn't speak up outlined instances in which random citizens are getting caught in the crossfire.
"We have people stalking outside of our elections offices in Cobb County," said Gabriel Sterling last Thursday. "We've had a warehouse manager, he was simply taking trash out to the dumpster, and he had somebody follow him with a camera telling him he's going to prison."
Hate crimes spiked across the country following Trump's 2017 defense of white supremacists in Charlottesville as "very fine people." But Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University at San Bernardino, told the Post threats targeting government officials increased last year and were then exacerbated by the onset of coronavirus restrictions.
"The direction of the threats and intimidation against state and local officials took an eerie turn in the last couple of years and accelerated during the pandemic because aggrieved people are interacting with their government at the local level — in public health and elections," Levin said. "And those officials are the very ones labeled as legitimate targets for aggressions on cable news, social media and particularly by the president."
Following the spate of violent threats, the question becomes who will even want to serve in these positions anymore?
"There is an ugliness and cruelty in our national rhetoric that is reaching a fevered pitch here at home, and that should worry us all," said Diana Lachiondo, a local Idaho health official who was forced to flee a meeting last week about pandemic restrictions when menacing protesters showed up at her home. Lachiondo, who recently lost reelection, added, "I'm out. ... I've got a light at the end of the tunnel here. But who is going to want to run in the future? Do you need to live in a gated community to feel like you're safe? That is my concern going forward . . . what does this mean for our democracy?"
One of her colleagues, physician Ted Epperly, agreed the problem isn't going away anytime soon. "I think it'll take a lot of healing, quite frankly, to get us back to working together as a society," he told the Post. "I'm sure people will write about this for years to come," he added. "What happened? What happened here in this country? Who are we as people?"


alternet--2020-12-15--A GOP senator tied himself in knots with a ridiculous answer rather than say Biden is president-elec

A GOP senator tied himself in knots with a ridiculous answer rather than say Biden is president-elect

On Monday , the Electoral College officially voted 306-232 to make Joe Biden the next president of the United States .
Many other milestones had made the final result clear for weeks , but President Donald Trump has decided to contest the election anyway .
With the vote of the Electoral College , however , those fights appear all the more futile .
So many Republican officials who had previously been hesitant to acknowledge Biden 's win started to come around on Monday .
Sens .
Joni Ernst of Iowa , Lindsey Graham of South Carolina , and Rob Portman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican Senator , however , still seems to be having difficulty with the issue .
HuffPost reporter Igor Bobic shared this answer from North Dakota 's Sen. Kevin Cramer when asked if Biden is now president-elect : The circuitous and meandering answer drew extensive mockery .
Many critics pointed out that it would have been much easier to simply say `` yes . ''
But the answer demonstrated how it is becoming increasingly difficult for the party to deny Biden 's win .
Trump may insist he 's still fighting to keep hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies are coming to see that his ouster has become an inevitability .
Even if they do n't want to admit it .

On Monday, the Electoral College officially voted 306-232 to make Joe Biden the next president of the United States. Many other milestones had made the final result clear for weeks, but President Donald Trump has decided to contest the election anyway.
With the vote of the Electoral College, however, those fights appear all the more futile. So many Republican officials who had previously been hesitant to acknowledge Biden's win started to come around on Monday.
The Wall Street Journal reported:
Shortly before votes for Mr. Biden surpassed the key electoral threshold of 270, Sen. John Thune (R., S.D.), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, told reporters there would be no doubts that Mr. Biden is president elect.
"I understand there are people who feel strongly about the outcome of this election," said Mr. Thune. "But in the end, at some point you have to face the music, and I think that once the Electoral College settles the issue today that it's time for everybody to move on."
"We've now gone through the constitutional process, and the electors have voted, so there's a president-elect," said Sen. Roy Blunt (R., Mo.), the fourth-ranking Senate Republican.
Sens. Joni Ernst of Iowa, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Rob Portman of Ohio made similar comments.
One Republican Senator, however, still seems to be having difficulty with the issue. HuffPost reporter Igor Bobic shared this answer from North Dakota's Sen. Kevin Cramer when asked if Biden is now president-elect:
Well, it seems to me that being elected by the Electoral College is a threshold where a title like that is probably most appropriate and it's, I suppose you can say official, if there is such a thing as official president-elect, or anything else-elect. And there's an inauguration that will swear somebody in and that person will be the president of the United States, but whether you call it that or not, you know, there are legal challenges that are ongoing -- not very many -- probably not a remedy that would change the outcome but, so, I don't -- again I don't know how politician refers to another politician, but it does look to me like the big race is really between the inaugural committee and the Justice Department at this point, so we'll see how the emails turn out.
The circuitous and meandering answer drew extensive mockery. Many critics pointed out that it would have been much easier to simply say "yes."
But the answer demonstrated how it is becoming increasingly difficult for the party to deny Biden's win. Trump may insist he's still fighting to keep hold of the White House, but his allies are coming to see that his ouster has become an inevitability. Even if they don't want to admit it.


alternet--2020-12-15--Trump couldn't steal this election — but here's why I'm worried about the next one

President-elect Joe Biden 's win was reaffirmed on Monday with yet another crushing blow to outgoing President Donald Trump 's attempt to steal the election .
When the Electoral College met in capitals across the country , despite much consternation , the vote essentially went off without a hitch .
Biden earned the majority with 306 electoral votes , while Trump garnered just 232 — a reflection of the tally that has been expected for weeks .
Not a single elector turned `` faithless '' or voted in an unexpected way , compared to the seven who broke ranks in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ launch a coup and `` overturn '' the election — his word — have failed .
Biden will be the next president .
But while some are taking this turn of events as a vindication of the American system , and a refutation of critics who feared Trump 's authoritarian power grab , it 's really a cold comfort .
It 's true the courts consistently shut down Trump 's bogus claims of election fraud or other allegations of irregularities .
The Supreme Court even twice dismissed attempts from Trump allies to insert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disappointing much of the Republican Party .
And with only a few minor exceptions , elections officials , even elected Republicans , did their duties and repeatedly affirmed Biden 's win , even when it was politically costly for them to do so .
Precisely because it was politically costly , though , to do the right and obvious thing — recognize and certify Biden 's win — we ca n't be confident that next time around everything will fall into place .
In Georgia , Gov .
Brian Kemp and Secretary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the president and his allies to use their power to overturn the election .
Thankfully , both resisted .
But that raises two frightening possibilities : Next time around , they 'll have even more incentive to prevent a GOP loss , so they may be willing to go to even greater lengths to suppress the Democratic vote .
Second , and even worse , the attacks they 've taken from their own party may make them unelectable , and they may be replaced by people who feel they have no choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no matter what .
Others in different states might feel similar pressures .
The party , led by Trump , has become comfortable with the idea of rejecting election results and fighting tooth and nail to overturn them .
They justify this to themselves by sharing strained and obscure arguments among themselves and by citing non-existent or easily explainable `` irregularities '' in the results .
How sincerely they believe all this stuff probably varies person to person , but it creates a shared belief that challenging the election is a legitimate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The idea that 2020 was an illegitimate election is likely to become party dogma , which will only entrench the party 's disposition to reject democracy next time around .
More than 120 House republicans and 18 Republican attorneys general signed on to a Texas lawsuit that sought to overturn the entire election .
That might have seemed unthinkable to some a few weeks ago , but it 's suddenly precedent , and it 's not hard to imagine they 'll go even further .
One of the biggest worries among some is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could find a way to flip a presidential election .
It 's certainly possible and should n't be ruled out .
But it could only happen in a close race .
As the court showed this time around , there are strict limits to the kinds of arguments it 's willing to accept , even if , on the margin , the conservative justices would be willing to bend the rules in the GOP 's favor .
Early on in Trump 's coup attempt , when I made the case that the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I also had some words of reassurance .
Despite the fact that the coup attempt was real , I said , the plan appeared to be fatally flawed in several ways .
The biggest flaw and most significant roadblock to a successful theft of the election was n't the courts but Congress .
The 12th Amendment actually does n't envision any role for the Supreme Court or any other judicial body in deciding an election .
Congress ultimately accepts the slates of the electors from the states , counts them , and declares @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contested — and this year , it likely will be — but any dispute is decided by both chambers of Congress .
Since the House was to remain in Democratic control , and the Senate was split close enough and had several Republicans willing to recognize Biden 's win , Trump ultimately had no serious chance of overturning the election .
Congress just would n't let it happen .
The worry is that we might no be so lucky next time around .
It 's hard to make confident predictions at this point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least a decent chance Democrats will lose control of the House in 2022 .
They may or may not have control of the Senate in the coming year , but it 's certainly possible they wo n't have either chamber by the time 2024 rolls around .
So what happens if Congress is fully controlled by Republicans , but the voters choose a Democratic president in 2024 ?
Normally , there 'd be no question — the process would just be followed .
But the GOP base may have had four years of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believing they were living under an illegitimate presidency .
They 'll reject out of hand the idea that they could be up for another four .
Republican Party officials will already be primed to remember that they do n't have to accept the media 's call of the presidential race , nor the states ' certifications , nor even the votes of the Electoral College .
Ultimately , the authority to recognize the next president comes down to Congress .
With full control of Congress , would the Republican Party let a Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maybe they would .
But after what we 've seen this year , it 's hard to be sure Republicans would do the right thing .
They might be willing to let democracy die instead .

President-elect Joe Biden's win was reaffirmed on Monday with yet another crushing blow to outgoing President Donald Trump's attempt to steal the election. When the Electoral College met in capitals across the country, despite much consternation, the vote essentially went off without a hitch. Biden earned the majority with 306 electoral votes, while Trump garnered just 232 — a reflection of the tally that has been expected for weeks. Not a single elector turned "faithless" or voted in an unexpected way, compared to the seven who broke ranks in 2016.
Trump's desperate efforts to launch a coup and "overturn" the election — his word — have failed. Biden will be the next president.
But while some are taking this turn of events as a vindication of the American system, and a refutation of critics who feared Trump's authoritarian power grab, it's really a cold comfort.
It's true the courts consistently shut down Trump's bogus claims of election fraud or other allegations of irregularities. The Supreme Court even twice dismissed attempts from Trump allies to insert the justices into the election, greatly disappointing much of the Republican Party. And with only a few minor exceptions, elections officials, even elected Republicans, did their duties and repeatedly affirmed Biden's win, even when it was politically costly for them to do so.
Precisely because it was politically costly, though, to do the right and obvious thing — recognize and certify Biden's win — we can't be confident that next time around everything will fall into place. In Georgia, Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger both resisted calls directly from the president and his allies to use their power to overturn the election. Thankfully, both resisted. But that raises two frightening possibilities: Next time around, they'll have even more incentive to prevent a GOP loss, so they may be willing to go to even greater lengths to suppress the Democratic vote. Second, and even worse, the attacks they've taken from their own party may make them unelectable, and they may be replaced by people who feel they have no choice but to make sure a Republican wins no matter what. Others in different states might feel similar pressures.
The party, led by Trump, has become comfortable with the idea of rejecting election results and fighting tooth and nail to overturn them. They justify this to themselves by sharing strained and obscure arguments among themselves and by citing non-existent or easily explainable "irregularities" in the results. How sincerely they believe all this stuff probably varies person to person, but it creates a shared belief that challenging the election is a legitimate, acceptable, and a viable possibility. The idea that 2020 was an illegitimate election is likely to become party dogma, which will only entrench the party's disposition to reject democracy next time around. More than 120 House republicans and 18 Republican attorneys general signed on to a Texas lawsuit that sought to overturn the entire election. That might have seemed unthinkable to some a few weeks ago, but it's suddenly precedent, and it's not hard to imagine they'll go even further.
One of the biggest worries among some is that the right-wing judiciary and Supreme Court could find a way to flip a presidential election. It's certainly possible and shouldn't be ruled out. But it could only happen in a close race. As the court showed this time around, there are strict limits to the kinds of arguments it's willing to accept, even if, on the margin, the conservative justices would be willing to bend the rules in the GOP's favor.
The bigger danger, I'd argue, is Congress.
Early on in Trump's coup attempt, when I made the case that the president's actions should be taken seriously, I also had some words of reassurance. Despite the fact that the coup attempt was real, I said, the plan appeared to be fatally flawed in several ways. The biggest flaw and most significant roadblock to a successful theft of the election wasn't the courts but Congress. The 12th Amendment actually doesn't envision any role for the Supreme Court or any other judicial body in deciding an election. Congress ultimately accepts the slates of the electors from the states, counts them, and declares the winner.
The count can be contested — and this year, it likely will be — but any dispute is decided by both chambers of Congress. Since the House was to remain in Democratic control, and the Senate was split close enough and had several Republicans willing to recognize Biden's win, Trump ultimately had no serious chance of overturning the election. Congress just wouldn't let it happen.
The worry is that we might no be so lucky next time around. It's hard to make confident predictions at this point, but there's at the very least a decent chance Democrats will lose control of the House in 2022. They may or may not have control of the Senate in the coming year, but it's certainly possible they won't have either chamber by the time 2024 rolls around.
So what happens if Congress is fully controlled by Republicans, but the voters choose a Democratic president in 2024?
Normally, there'd be no question — the process would just be followed. But the GOP base may have had four years of radicalization behind them at that point, believing they were living under an illegitimate presidency. They'll reject out of hand the idea that they could be up for another four. Republican Party officials will already be primed to remember that they don't have to accept the media's call of the presidential race, nor the states' certifications, nor even the votes of the Electoral College. Ultimately, the authority to recognize the next president comes down to Congress.
With full control of Congress, would the Republican Party let a Democrat keep control of the White House?
Maybe they would. But after what we've seen this year, it's hard to be sure Republicans would do the right thing. They might be willing to let democracy die instead.


alternet--2020-12-15--Republican notorious for Russia ties dead with 'severe head trauma': report

On Monday , The Daily Beast reported that Paul Behrends , a notorious former staffer for ex-Rep. Dana Rohrabacher ( R-CA ) , died after being found near his home with `` severe head trauma . ''
`` Rohrabacher 's former congressional spokesman Ken Grubbs told The Daily Beast that Behrends died at the hospital . '
I did actually call Dana and he confirmed it , ' he said .
'What I 've heard is that he slipped… hit his head , and died in surgery , ' '' reported Nico Hines .
`` Grubbs said there was no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Behrends or that there was any link to his associations with Russia .
'No , no , not at all , ' he said . ''
Behrends , much like his former boss , was notorious for ties to Russia , which led to him being removed from his position as staff director for the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee .
He had ties to Natalia Veselnitskaya , the Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. at Trump Tower .
`` Behrends made headlines for the first time in July 2017 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tower meeting with Jared Kushner , Donald Trump Jr. , and then Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was exposed .
The meeting subsequently shone a light on Behrends ' own Russian entanglements , '' said the report .
`` Behrends had traveled to Moscow with Rohrabacher in April 2016 , a few months before that meeting .
In Russia , they were given a document from the Prosecutor General 's Office marked 'confidential , ' which included details of the Kremlin 's battle against U.S. sanctions and a pro-Kremlin propaganda movie . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @

On Monday, The Daily Beast reported that Paul Behrends, a notorious former staffer for ex-Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), died after being found near his home with "severe head trauma."
"Rohrabacher's former congressional spokesman Ken Grubbs told The Daily Beast that Behrends died at the hospital. 'I did actually call Dana and he confirmed it,' he said. 'What I've heard is that he slipped… hit his head, and died in surgery,'" reported Nico Hines. "Grubbs said there was no reason to think anything suspicious had happened to Behrends or that there was any link to his associations with Russia. 'No, no, not at all,' he said."
Behrends, much like his former boss, was notorious for ties to Russia, which led to him being removed from his position as staff director for the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee. He had ties to Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. at Trump Tower.
"Behrends made headlines for the first time in July 2017, after Veselnitskaya's explosive June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., and then Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was exposed. The meeting subsequently shone a light on Behrends' own Russian entanglements," said the report. "Behrends had traveled to Moscow with Rohrabacher in April 2016, a few months before that meeting. In Russia, they were given a document from the Prosecutor General's Office marked 'confidential,' which included details of the Kremlin's battle against U.S. sanctions and a pro-Kremlin propaganda movie."
You can read more here.


alternet--2020-12-15--Venus used to be like Earth — then climate change happened

We can learn a lot about climate change from Venus , our sister planet .
Venus currently has a surface temperature of 450℃ ( the temperature of an oven 's self-cleaning cycle ) and an atmosphere dominated by carbon dioxide ( 96 per cent ) with a density 90 times that of Earth 's .
Venus is a very strange place , totally uninhabitable , except perhaps in the clouds some 60 kilometres up where the recent discovery of phosphine may suggest floating microbial life .
But the surface is totally inhospitable .
However , Venus once likely had an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modelling , for much of its history Venus had surface temperatures similar to present day Earth .
It likely also had oceans , rain , perhaps snow , maybe continents and plate tectonics , and even more speculatively , perhaps even surface life .
Less than one billion years ago , the climate dramatically changed due to a runaway greenhouse effect .
It can be speculated that an intensive period of volcanism pumped enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to cause this great climate change event that evaporated the oceans and caused the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hypothesis from the climate modellers inspired Sara Khawja , a master 's student in my group ( co-supervised with geoscientist Claire Samson ) , to look for evidence in Venusian rocks for this proposed climatic change event .
Since the early 1990s , my Carleton University research team — and more recently my Siberian team at Tomsk State University — have been mapping and interpreting the geological and tectonic history of Earth 's remarkable sister planet .
Soviet Venera and Vega missions of the 1970s and 1980s did land on Venus and take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rocks , before the landers failed due to the high temperature and pressure .
However , our most comprehensive view of the surface of Venus has been provided by NASA 's Magellan spacecraft in the early 1990s , which used radar to see through the dense cloud layer and produce detailed images of more than 98 per cent of Venus 's surface .
A visualization of Venus 's surface produced by radar on board the Magellan spacecraft .
Our search for geological evidence of the great climate change event led us to focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Venus , called tesserae , which have a complex appearance suggestive of a long , complicated geological history .
We thought that these oldest rocks had the best chance of preserving evidence of water erosion , which is a such an important process on Earth and should have occurred on Venus prior to the great climate change event .
Given poor resolution altitude data , we used an indirect technique to try to recognize ancient river valleys .
We demonstrated that younger lava flows from the surrounding volcanic plains had filled valleys in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ astonishment these tesserae valley patterns were very similar to river flow patterns on Earth , leading to our suggestion that these tesserae valleys were formed by river erosion during a time with Earth-like climatic conditions .
My Venus research groups at Carleton and Tomsk State universities are studying the post-tesserae lava flows for any geological evidence of the transition to extremely hot conditions .
In order to understand how volcanism on Venus could produce such a change in climate , we can look to Earth history for analogues .
We can find analogies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yellowstone that occurred 630,000 years .
But such volcanism is small compared to large igneous provinces ( LIPs ) that occur approximately every 20-30 million years .
These eruption events can release enough carbon dioxide to cause catastrophic climate change on Earth , including mass extinctions .
To give you a sense of scale , consider that the smallest LIPs produce enough magma to cover all of Canada to a depth of about 10 metres .
The largest known LIP produced enough magma that would have covered an area the size of Canada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The LIP analogues on Venus include individual volcanoes that are up to 500 kilometres across , extensive lava channels that reach up to 7,000 kilometres long , and there are also associated rift systems — where the crust is pulling apart — up to 10,000 kilometres long .
If LIP-style volcanism was the cause of the great climate change event on Venus , then could similar climate change happen on Earth ?
We can imagine a scenario many millions of years in the future when multiple LIPs randomly occurring at the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runaway climate change leading to conditions like present-day Venus .
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

by Richard Ernst, Carleton University
We can learn a lot about climate change from Venus, our sister planet. Venus currently has a surface temperature of 450℃ (the temperature of an oven's self-cleaning cycle) and an atmosphere dominated by carbon dioxide (96 per cent) with a density 90 times that of Earth's.
Venus is a very strange place, totally uninhabitable, except perhaps in the clouds some 60 kilometres up where the recent discovery of phosphine may suggest floating microbial life. But the surface is totally inhospitable.
However, Venus once likely had an Earth-like climate. According to recent climate modelling, for much of its history Venus had surface temperatures similar to present day Earth. It likely also had oceans, rain, perhaps snow, maybe continents and plate tectonics, and even more speculatively, perhaps even surface life.
Less than one billion years ago, the climate dramatically changed due to a runaway greenhouse effect. It can be speculated that an intensive period of volcanism pumped enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to cause this great climate change event that evaporated the oceans and caused the end of the water cycle.
Evidence of change
This hypothesis from the climate modellers inspired Sara Khawja, a master's student in my group (co-supervised with geoscientist Claire Samson), to look for evidence in Venusian rocks for this proposed climatic change event.
Since the early 1990s, my Carleton University research team — and more recently my Siberian team at Tomsk State University — have been mapping and interpreting the geological and tectonic history of Earth's remarkable sister planet.
Soviet Venera and Vega missions of the 1970s and 1980s did land on Venus and take pictures and evaluated the composition of the rocks, before the landers failed due to the high temperature and pressure. However, our most comprehensive view of the surface of Venus has been provided by NASA's Magellan spacecraft in the early 1990s, which used radar to see through the dense cloud layer and produce detailed images of more than 98 per cent of Venus's surface.
A visualization of Venus's surface produced by radar on board the Magellan spacecraft.
Ancient rocks
Our search for geological evidence of the great climate change event led us to focus on the oldest type of rocks on Venus, called tesserae, which have a complex appearance suggestive of a long, complicated geological history. We thought that these oldest rocks had the best chance of preserving evidence of water erosion, which is a such an important process on Earth and should have occurred on Venus prior to the great climate change event.
Given poor resolution altitude data, we used an indirect technique to try to recognize ancient river valleys. We demonstrated that younger lava flows from the surrounding volcanic plains had filled valleys in the margins of tesserae.
To our astonishment these tesserae valley patterns were very similar to river flow patterns on Earth, leading to our suggestion that these tesserae valleys were formed by river erosion during a time with Earth-like climatic conditions. My Venus research groups at Carleton and Tomsk State universities are studying the post-tesserae lava flows for any geological evidence of the transition to extremely hot conditions.
Earth analogies
In order to understand how volcanism on Venus could produce such a change in climate, we can look to Earth history for analogues. We can find analogies in super-eruptions like the last eruption at Yellowstone that occurred 630,000 years.
But such volcanism is small compared to large igneous provinces (LIPs) that occur approximately every 20-30 million years. These eruption events can release enough carbon dioxide to cause catastrophic climate change on Earth, including mass extinctions. To give you a sense of scale, consider that the smallest LIPs produce enough magma to cover all of Canada to a depth of about 10 metres. The largest known LIP produced enough magma that would have covered an area the size of Canada to a depth of nearly eight kilometres.
The LIP analogues on Venus include individual volcanoes that are up to 500 kilometres across, extensive lava channels that reach up to 7,000 kilometres long, and there are also associated rift systems — where the crust is pulling apart — up to 10,000 kilometres long.
If LIP-style volcanism was the cause of the great climate change event on Venus, then could similar climate change happen on Earth? We can imagine a scenario many millions of years in the future when multiple LIPs randomly occurring at the same time could cause Earth to have such runaway climate change leading to conditions like present-day Venus.
Richard Ernst, Scientist-in-Residence, Earth Sciences, Carleton University (also a professor at Tomsk State University, Russia), Carleton University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-12-15--How the politics of COVID-19 created winners and losers

Politics is at the core of the COVID-19 pandemic .
Regardless of jurisdiction , the specific actions many governments have taken to combat the pandemic are ultimately rooted in politics , not science .
Politics is essentially involves politicians making rules and laws that citizens must follow .
The pandemic has made politics extraordinarily relevant at a time when many people have become more devoted to , and are more knowledgeable about , Netflix and Apple than Health Canada or their local public health agency .
In Canada , the political elite is overwhelmingly white , male , upper-middle class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and of Christian background .
These characteristics do not necessarily determine the policy preferences of elected officials , but they do shape their world view .
During the pandemic , politicians have intruded to an unprecedented extent into the daily lives of citizens by , among other actions , prohibiting religious meetings , restricting social contacts , banning gatherings with family and friends and limiting travel .
It 's not unreasonable for a young person to wonder the extent to which middle-aged politicians appreciate the impact of months-long restrictions on the life opportunities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose identifies have little in common with the political elite , may sensibly question how broadly politicians canvass for options when reaching decisions that dramatically impact individual lives .
The losers of the pandemic The nature of all political decisions is that some groups benefit and others suffer .
Even the best crafted policies do not mean equal outcomes .
The losers from political decisions during the pandemic have been the usual suspects : those in precarious employment , in crowded housing and generally those at the margins of the social structure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ belonging to racialized communities in large urban centres .
It 's telling that politicians mandate restaurants to increase social distancing and institute enhanced health and cleaning protocols for the safety of guests , but do little to improve the working conditions of the staff in the kitchen .
The old and infirm have also been losers in political decision-making during 2020 , as demonstrated by the appalling conditions revealed to exist in some long-term care homes .
Locking long-term care residents in their rooms for months , especially those not infected with COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held by this group .
Tellingly , no government has made a commitment to substantial reform of long-term care or fundamental modifications to working conditions for staff working in nursing homes .
The winners of the pandemic The winners from the political decisions made during COVID-19 have been those in unionized , secure and professional jobs , some of whom continued to earn employment income even when little work was demanded of them .
The winners also included those without child-care responsibilities or school-age children .
As always , the winners are those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Politics is the art of finding acceptable compromises .
Complete prevention from harm is never the aim of politicians .
If it were , then the transport and storage of flammable products would be outlawed , as would the sale of cigarettes and a lot more .
During COVID-19 , much of politics has been the search for a compromise between safety from the effects of the virus and the social and economic needs of voters .
Exemplified by the on-again , off-again lockdowns in different regions and municipalities , the politically acceptable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month to month .
In hunting for the optimal compromise , politicians seek to avoid blame for unpopular actions .
After all , re-election prospects are dimmed for the bearers of bad news .
This has resulted in an atypical role for public servants .
Most of the time , bureaucrats remain faceless and nameless , portraying themselves as having no self-interest other than to serve their political masters with neutral competence .
During COVID-19 , the typical pattern of government announcements is a proclamation from public health officials of how dire the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A few hours later , politicians take the microphone , typically starting their remarks with something along the lines of : “ Acting on the best advice of public health officials .
… '' As soon as vaccines are available and infection rates decline , there will be a minimal public role for bureaucrats .
When good news is to be shared , politicians will take full credit and appointed officials will no longer be compelled to share the stage .
The pandemic has made politics raw because the impact of political decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intimately , in the daily lives of citizens .
The pandemic has demonstrated the messy trade-offs , the competing priorities and the winners and losers inherent in politics .
Although COVID-19 may have changed a lot , politics remains the same .
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

by Thomas Klassen, York University, Canada
Politics is at the core of the COVID-19 pandemic. Regardless of jurisdiction, the specific actions many governments have taken to combat the pandemic are ultimately rooted in politics, not science.
Politics is essentially involves politicians making rules and laws that citizens must follow. The pandemic has made politics extraordinarily relevant at a time when many people have become more devoted to, and are more knowledgeable about, Netflix and Apple than Health Canada or their local public health agency.
In Canada, the political elite is overwhelmingly white, male, upper-middle class, middle-aged, university-educated, technologically competent and of Christian background. These characteristics do not necessarily determine the policy preferences of elected officials, but they do shape their world view.
During the pandemic, politicians have intruded to an unprecedented extent into the daily lives of citizens by, among other actions, prohibiting religious meetings, restricting social contacts, banning gatherings with family and friends and limiting travel.
It's not unreasonable for a young person to wonder the extent to which middle-aged politicians appreciate the impact of months-long restrictions on the life opportunities of youth.
Groups, especially those whose identifies have little in common with the political elite, may sensibly question how broadly politicians canvass for options when reaching decisions that dramatically impact individual lives.
The losers of the pandemic
The nature of all political decisions is that some groups benefit and others suffer. Even the best crafted policies do not mean equal outcomes. The losers from political decisions during the pandemic have been the usual suspects: those in precarious employment, in crowded housing and generally those at the margins of the social structure.
A disproportionate number of these are families belonging to racialized communities in large urban centres.
It's telling that politicians mandate restaurants to increase social distancing and institute enhanced health and cleaning protocols for the safety of guests, but do little to improve the working conditions of the staff in the kitchen.
The old and infirm have also been losers in political decision-making during 2020, as demonstrated by the appalling conditions revealed to exist in some long-term care homes. Locking long-term care residents in their rooms for months, especially those not infected with COVID-19, reflects the lack of political power held by this group.
Tellingly, no government has made a commitment to substantial reform of long-term care or fundamental modifications to working conditions for staff working in nursing homes.
The winners of the pandemic
The winners from the political decisions made during COVID-19 have been those in unionized, secure and professional jobs, some of whom continued to earn employment income even when little work was demanded of them. The winners also included those without child-care responsibilities or school-age children. As always, the winners are those with money, time and health.
Politics is the art of finding acceptable compromises. Complete prevention from harm is never the aim of politicians. If it were, then the transport and storage of flammable products would be outlawed, as would the sale of cigarettes and a lot more.
During COVID-19, much of politics has been the search for a compromise between safety from the effects of the virus and the social and economic needs of voters. Exemplified by the on-again, off-again lockdowns in different regions and municipalities, the politically acceptable compromise shifts from week to week and month to month.
In hunting for the optimal compromise, politicians seek to avoid blame for unpopular actions. After all, re-election prospects are dimmed for the bearers of bad news.
Serving their political masters
This has resulted in an atypical role for public servants. Most of the time, bureaucrats remain faceless and nameless, portraying themselves as having no self-interest other than to serve their political masters with neutral competence.
During COVID-19, the typical pattern of government announcements is a proclamation from public health officials of how dire the situation may become in the future. A few hours later, politicians take the microphone, typically starting their remarks with something along the lines of: “Acting on the best advice of public health officials. …"
As soon as vaccines are available and infection rates decline, there will be a minimal public role for bureaucrats. When good news is to be shared, politicians will take full credit and appointed officials will no longer be compelled to share the stage.
The pandemic has made politics raw because the impact of political decisions is felt almost immediately, sometimes even intimately, in the daily lives of citizens. The pandemic has demonstrated the messy trade-offs, the competing priorities and the winners and losers inherent in politics. Although COVID-19 may have changed a lot, politics remains the same.
Thomas Klassen, Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, York University, Canada
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-12-15--Will Biden’s America stop creating terrorists?

Joe Biden will take command of the White House at a time when the American public is more concerned about battling coronavirus than fighting overseas wars .
But America 's wars rage on regardless , and the militarized counterterrorism policy Biden has supported in the past—based on airstrikes , special operations and the use of proxy forces—is precisely what keeps these conflicts raging .
In Afghanistan , Biden opposed Obama 's 2009 troop surge , and after the surge failed , Obama reverted to the policy that Biden favored to begin with , which became the hallmark of their war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In insider circles , this was referred to as `` counterterrorism , '' as opposed to `` counterinsurgency . ''
In Afghanistan , that meant abandoning the large-scale deployment of U.S. forces , and relying instead on air strikes , drone strikes and special operations `` kill or capture '' raids , while recruiting and training Afghan forces to do nearly all the ground fighting and holding of territory .
In the 2011 Libya intervention , the NATO-Arab monarchist coalition embedded hundreds of Qatari special operations forces and Western mercenaries with the Libyan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ train local militias , including Islamist groups with links to Al Qaeda .
The forces they unleashed are still fighting over the spoils nine years later .
While Joe Biden now takes credit for opposing the disastrous intervention in Libya , at the time he was quick to hail its deceptive short-term success and Colonel Gaddafi 's gruesome assassination .
`` NATO got it right , '' Biden said in a speech at Plymouth State College in October 2011 on the very day President Obama announced Gaddafi 's death .
`` In this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and did n't lose a single life .
This is more the prescription for how to deal with the world as we go forward than it has in the past . ''
While Biden has since washed his hands of the debacle in Libya , that operation was in fact emblematic of the doctrine of covert and proxy war backed by airstrikes that he supported , and which he has yet to disavow .
Biden still says he supports `` counterterrorism '' operations , but he was elected president without ever publicly answering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the massive use of airstrikes and drone strikes that are an integral part of that doctrine .
In the campaign against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria , U.S.-led forces dropped over 118,000 bombs and missiles , reducing major cities like Mosul and Raqqa to rubble and killing tens of thousands of civilians .
When Biden said America `` did n't lose a single life '' in Libya , he clearly meant `` American life . ''
If `` life '' simply means life , the war in Libya obviously cost countless lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UN Security Council resolution that approved the use of military force only to protect civilians .
As Rob Hewson , the editor of the arms trade journal Jane 's Air-Launched Weapons , told the AP as the U.S. unleashed its `` Shock and Awe '' bombardment on Iraq in 2003 , `` In a war that 's being fought for the benefit of the Iraqi people , you ca n't afford to kill any of them .
But you ca n't drop bombs and not kill people .
There 's a real dichotomy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same obviously applies to people in Libya , Afghanistan , Syria , Yemen , Palestine and wherever American bombs have been falling for 20 years .
As Obama and Trump both tried to pivot from the failed `` global war on terrorism '' to what the Trump administration has branded `` great power competition , '' or a reversion to the Cold War , the war on terror has stubbornly refused to exit on cue .
Al Qaeda and Islamic State have been driven from places the U.S. has bombed or invaded , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regions .
Islamic State now occupies a swath of northern Mozambique , and has also taken root in Afghanistan .
Other Al Qaeda affiliates are active across Africa , from Somalia and Kenya in East Africa to eleven countries in West Africa .
After nearly 20 years of `` war on terror , '' there is now a large body of research into what drives people to join Islamist armed groups fighting local government forces or Western invaders .
While American politicians still wring their hands over what twisted motives can possibly account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that it 's really not that complicated .
Most fighters are not motivated by Islamist ideology as much as by the desire to protect themselves , their families or their communities from militarized `` counterterrorism '' forces , as documented in this report by the Center for Civilians in Conflict .
Another study , titled The Journey to Extremism in Africa : Drivers , Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment , found that the tipping point or `` final straw '' that drives over 70 % of fighters to join armed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a family member by `` counterterrorism '' or `` security '' forces .
The study exposes the U.S. brand of militarized counterterrorism as a self-fulfilling policy that fuels an intractable cycle of violence by generating and replenishing an ever-expanding pool of `` terrorists '' as it destroys families , communities and countries .
For example , the U.S. formed the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership with 11 West African countries in 2005 and has so far sunk a billion dollars into it .
In a recent report from Burkina Faso , Nick Turse cited U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of U.S.-led `` counterterrorism '' have only fueled an explosion of terrorism across West Africa .
The Pentagon 's Africa Center for Strategic Studies reports that the 1,000 violent incidents involving militant Islamist groups in Burkina Faso , Mali and Niger in the past year amount to a seven-fold increase since 2017 , while the confirmed minimum number of people killed has increased from 1,538 in 2017 to 4,404 in 2020 .
Heni Nsaibia , a senior researcher at ACLED ( Armed Conflict Location Event Data ) , told Turse that , `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embracing a strictly military model has been a major mistake .
Ignoring drivers of militancy , such as poverty and lack of social mobility , and failing to alleviate the conditions that foster insurgencies , like widespread human rights abuses by security forces , have caused irreparable harm . ''
Indeed , even the New York Times has confirmed that `` counterterrorism '' forces in Burkina Faso are killing as many civilians as the `` terrorists '' they are supposed to be fighting .
A 2019 U.S. State Department Country Report on Burkina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extrajudicial killings of civilians as part of its counterterrorism strategy , '' mainly killing members of the Fulani ethnic group .
Souaibou Diallo , the president of a regional association of Muslim scholars , told Turse that these abuses are the main factor driving the Fulani to join militant groups .
`` Eighty percent of those who join terrorist groups told us that it is n't because they support jihadism , it is because their father or mother or brother was killed by the armed forces , '' said Diallo .
`` So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been no justice . ''
Since the inception of the Global War on Terror , both sides have used the violence of their enemies to justify their own violence , fueling a seemingly endless spiral of chaos spreading from country to country and region to region across the world .
But the U.S. roots of all this violence and chaos run even deeper than this .
Both Al Qaeda and Islamic State evolved from groups originally recruited , trained , armed and supported by the CIA to overthrow foreign governments : Al Qaeda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Nusra Front and Islamic State in Syria since 2011 .
If the Biden administration really wants to stop fueling chaos and terrorism in the world , it must radically transform the CIA , whose role in destabilizing countries , supporting terrorism , spreading chaos and creating false pretexts for war and hostility has been well documented since the 1970s by Colonel Fletcher Prouty , William Blum , Gareth Porter and others .
The United States will never have an objective , depoliticized national intelligence system , or therefore a reality-based , coherent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ghost in the machine .
Biden has chosen Avril Haines , who crafted the secret quasi-legal basis for Obama 's drone program and protected CIA torturers , to be his Director of National Intelligence .
Is Haines up to the job of transforming these agencies of violence and chaos into a legitimate , working intelligence system ?
That seems unlikely , and yet it is vital .
The new Biden administration needs to take a truly fresh look at the whole range of destructive policies the United States has pursued around the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CIA has played in so many of them .
We hope Biden will finally renounce hare-brained , militarized policies that destroy societies and ruin people 's lives for the sake of unattainable geopolitical ambitions , and that he will instead invest in humanitarian and economic aid that really helps people to live more peaceful and prosperous lives .
We also hope that Biden will reverse Trump 's pivot back to the Cold War and prevent the diversion of more of our country 's resources to a futile and dangerous arms race with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems to deal with in this century - existential problems that can only be solved by genuine international cooperation .
We can no longer afford to sacrifice our future on the altar of the Global War on Terror , a New Cold War , Pax Americana or other imperialist fantasies .
Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace , and author of several books , including Inside Iran : The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran .
She is a member of the writers ' group Collective20 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalist , a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood On Our Hands : the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq .

Joe Biden will take command of the White House at a time when the American public is more concerned about battling coronavirus than fighting overseas wars. But America's wars rage on regardless, and the militarized counterterrorism policy Biden has supported in the past—based on airstrikes, special operations and the use of proxy forces—is precisely what keeps these conflicts raging.
In Afghanistan, Biden opposed Obama's 2009 troop surge, and after the surge failed, Obama reverted to the policy that Biden favored to begin with, which became the hallmark of their war policy in other countries as well. In insider circles, this was referred to as "counterterrorism," as opposed to "counterinsurgency."
In Afghanistan, that meant abandoning the large-scale deployment of U.S. forces, and relying instead on air strikes, drone strikes and special operations "kill or capture" raids, while recruiting and training Afghan forces to do nearly all the ground fighting and holding of territory.
In the 2011 Libya intervention, the NATO-Arab monarchist coalition embedded hundreds of Qatari special operations forces and Western mercenaries with the Libyan rebels to call in NATO airstrikes and train local militias, including Islamist groups with links to Al Qaeda. The forces they unleashed are still fighting over the spoils nine years later.
While Joe Biden now takes credit for opposing the disastrous intervention in Libya, at the time he was quick to hail its deceptive short-term success and Colonel Gaddafi's gruesome assassination. "NATO got it right," Biden said in a speech at Plymouth State College in October 2011 on the very day President Obama announced Gaddafi's death. "In this case, America spent $2 billion and didn't lose a single life. This is more the prescription for how to deal with the world as we go forward than it has in the past."
While Biden has since washed his hands of the debacle in Libya, that operation was in fact emblematic of the doctrine of covert and proxy war backed by airstrikes that he supported, and which he has yet to disavow. Biden still says he supports "counterterrorism" operations, but he was elected president without ever publicly answering a direct question about his support for the massive use of airstrikes and drone strikes that are an integral part of that doctrine.
In the campaign against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, U.S.-led forces dropped over 118,000 bombs and missiles, reducing major cities like Mosul and Raqqa to rubble and killing tens of thousands of civilians. When Biden said America "didn't lose a single life" in Libya, he clearly meant "American life." If "life" simply means life, the war in Libya obviously cost countless lives, and made a mockery of a UN Security Council resolution that approved the use of military force only to protect civilians.
As Rob Hewson, the editor of the arms trade journal Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, told the AP as the U.S. unleashed its "Shock and Awe" bombardment on Iraq in 2003, "In a war that's being fought for the benefit of the Iraqi people, you can't afford to kill any of them. But you can't drop bombs and not kill people. There's a real dichotomy in all of this." The same obviously applies to people in Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Palestine and wherever American bombs have been falling for 20 years.
As Obama and Trump both tried to pivot from the failed "global war on terrorism" to what the Trump administration has branded "great power competition," or a reversion to the Cold War, the war on terror has stubbornly refused to exit on cue. Al Qaeda and Islamic State have been driven from places the U.S. has bombed or invaded, but keep reappearing in new countries and regions. Islamic State now occupies a swath of northern Mozambique, and has also taken root in Afghanistan. Other Al Qaeda affiliates are active across Africa, from Somalia and Kenya in East Africa to eleven countries in West Africa.
After nearly 20 years of "war on terror," there is now a large body of research into what drives people to join Islamist armed groups fighting local government forces or Western invaders. While American politicians still wring their hands over what twisted motives can possibly account for such incomprehensible behavior, it turns out that it's really not that complicated. Most fighters are not motivated by Islamist ideology as much as by the desire to protect themselves, their families or their communities from militarized "counterterrorism" forces, as documented in this report by the Center for Civilians in Conflict.
Another study, titled The Journey to Extremism in Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment, found that the tipping point or "final straw" that drives over 70% of fighters to join armed groups is the killing or detention of a family member by "counterterrorism" or "security" forces. The study exposes the U.S. brand of militarized counterterrorism as a self-fulfilling policy that fuels an intractable cycle of violence by generating and replenishing an ever-expanding pool of "terrorists" as it destroys families, communities and countries.
For example, the U.S. formed the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership with 11 West African countries in 2005 and has so far sunk a billion dollars into it. In a recent report from Burkina Faso, Nick Turse cited U.S. government reports that confirm how 15 years of U.S.-led "counterterrorism" have only fueled an explosion of terrorism across West Africa.
The Pentagon's Africa Center for Strategic Studies reports that the 1,000 violent incidents involving militant Islamist groups in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger in the past year amount to a seven-fold increase since 2017, while the confirmed minimum number of people killed has increased from 1,538 in 2017 to 4,404 in 2020.
Heni Nsaibia, a senior researcher at ACLED (Armed Conflict Location Event Data), told Turse that, "Focusing on Western concepts of counterterrorism and embracing a strictly military model has been a major mistake. Ignoring drivers of militancy, such as poverty and lack of social mobility, and failing to alleviate the conditions that foster insurgencies, like widespread human rights abuses by security forces, have caused irreparable harm."
Indeed, even the New York Times has confirmed that "counterterrorism" forces in Burkina Faso are killing as many civilians as the "terrorists" they are supposed to be fighting. A 2019 U.S. State Department Country Report on Burkina Faso documented allegations of "hundreds of extrajudicial killings of civilians as part of its counterterrorism strategy," mainly killing members of the Fulani ethnic group.
Souaibou Diallo, the president of a regional association of Muslim scholars, told Turse that these abuses are the main factor driving the Fulani to join militant groups. "Eighty percent of those who join terrorist groups told us that it isn't because they support jihadism, it is because their father or mother or brother was killed by the armed forces," said Diallo. "So many people have been killed—assassinated—but there has been no justice."
Since the inception of the Global War on Terror, both sides have used the violence of their enemies to justify their own violence, fueling a seemingly endless spiral of chaos spreading from country to country and region to region across the world.
But the U.S. roots of all this violence and chaos run even deeper than this. Both Al Qaeda and Islamic State evolved from groups originally recruited, trained, armed and supported by the CIA to overthrow foreign governments: Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and the Nusra Front and Islamic State in Syria since 2011.
If the Biden administration really wants to stop fueling chaos and terrorism in the world, it must radically transform the CIA, whose role in destabilizing countries, supporting terrorism, spreading chaos and creating false pretexts for war and hostility has been well documented since the 1970s by Colonel Fletcher Prouty, William Blum, Gareth Porter and others.
The United States will never have an objective, depoliticized national intelligence system, or therefore a reality-based, coherent foreign policy, until it exorcises this ghost in the machine. Biden has chosen Avril Haines, who crafted the secret quasi-legal basis for Obama's drone program and protected CIA torturers, to be his Director of National Intelligence. Is Haines up to the job of transforming these agencies of violence and chaos into a legitimate, working intelligence system? That seems unlikely, and yet it is vital.
The new Biden administration needs to take a truly fresh look at the whole range of destructive policies the United States has pursued around the world for decades, and the insidious role the CIA has played in so many of them.
We hope Biden will finally renounce hare-brained, militarized policies that destroy societies and ruin people's lives for the sake of unattainable geopolitical ambitions, and that he will instead invest in humanitarian and economic aid that really helps people to live more peaceful and prosperous lives.
We also hope that Biden will reverse Trump's pivot back to the Cold War and prevent the diversion of more of our country's resources to a futile and dangerous arms race with China and Russia.
We have real problems to deal with in this century - existential problems that can only be solved by genuine international cooperation. We can no longer afford to sacrifice our future on the altar of the Global War on Terror, a New Cold War, Pax Americana or other imperialist fantasies.
Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. She is a member of the writers' group Collective20.
Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author ofBlood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.


alternet--2020-12-15--Biden win raises possibility for 'shadow presidency' that could wreak havoc in 2021: report

President-elect Joe Biden 's victory has been officially affirmed by the Electoral College but it appears even that is not enough to stop President Donald Trump 's attack on democracy .
With reports about him possibly kicking off his 2024 presidential campaign in the coming weeks , it seems more and more likely that he may become what 's being called a `` shadow president . ''
An editorial published by The Daily Beast dives into the possibility of Trump continuing a ploy to stay in the eye of the media even after he leaves the White House in January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking its last gasp , can we quit him and return to a modicum of sanity and normalcy ?
Starting in January , can we string together a few Trump-free news cycles ?
More to the point : can we quit taking his bait ?
Or are we doomed to cover Trump 's antics as a sort of shadow presidency ?
Despite the Electoral College confirmation , many of Trump 's allies and supporters , and even some Republican lawmakers , still refuse to acknowledge that Trump 's reign of terror is over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not Republicans will ever come around or if they will continue to remain loyal to Trump .
So , how will television networks handle Trumpism going forward ?
What if , aside from providing catnip in the form of controversial tweets , rallies , and speeches , Trump sets up a sort of shadow presidency at the `` Winter White House '' ?
One could imagine him holding court at Mar-a-Lago , handing out faux awards and citations , and entertaining dignitaries .
As a former president , he would be privy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including being addressed by the title , `` Mr .
President . ''
The question is , to what degree will this all be televised , amplified , and glamorized ( I mean by the mainstream media ; he will obviously still be `` president '' on most of the exclusively right-wing outlets ) ?

President-elect Joe Biden's victory has been officially affirmed by the Electoral College but it appears even that is not enough to stop President Donald Trump's attack on democracy. With reports about him possibly kicking off his 2024 presidential campaign in the coming weeks, it seems more and more likely that he may become what's being called a "shadow president."
An editorial published by The Daily Beast dives into the possibility of Trump continuing a ploy to stay in the eye of the media even after he leaves the White House in January.
Now that his presidency is mercifully taking its last gasp, can we quit him and return to a modicum of sanity and normalcy? Starting in January, can we string together a few Trump-free news cycles? More to the point: can we quit taking his bait? Or are we doomed to cover Trump's antics as a sort of shadow presidency?
Despite the Electoral College confirmation, many of Trump's allies and supporters, and even some Republican lawmakers, still refuse to acknowledge that Trump's reign of terror is over. Another question centers on whether or not Republicans will ever come around or if they will continue to remain loyal to Trump. So, how will television networks handle Trumpism going forward?
The publication writes:
What if, aside from providing catnip in the form of controversial tweets, rallies, and speeches, Trump sets up a sort of shadow presidency at the "Winter White House"? One could imagine him holding court at Mar-a-Lago, handing out faux awards and citations, and entertaining dignitaries. As a former president, he would be privy to some of the trappings of the presidency, including being addressed by the title, "Mr. President." The question is, to what degree will this all be televised, amplified, and glamorized (I mean by the mainstream media; he will obviously still be "president" on most of the exclusively right-wing outlets)?