alternet--2020-12-10--18 Republican AGs back 'meritless' effort to overturn Biden win: 'We might as well toss the Constitu

18 Republican AGs back 'meritless' effort to overturn Biden win: 'We might as well toss the Constitution'

With the Trump operation 's legal effort to overturn the November election going nowhere , nearly 20 Republican attorneys general have decided to throw their support behind Texas AG Ken Paxton 's desperate—and , according to analysts , doomed-to-fail—Supreme Court lawsuit against four key battleground states that have certified President-elect Joe Biden 's victories .
Filed on Tuesday and enthusiastically celebrated in right-wing circles , Paxton 's lawsuit ( pdf ) baselessly alleges `` significant and unconstitutional irregularities '' in Georgia , Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin and pleads with the high court to delay next week 's scheduled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states .
That the lawsuit was mocked as `` utter garbage '' and `` factually untethered '' by legal experts did not dissuade 18 Republican attorneys general , led by Missouri AG Eric Schmitt , from expressing support for Paxton 's effort .
As of this writing , the Republican attorneys general of Alabama , Arkansas , Florida , Indiana , Kansas , Louisiana , Mississippi , Montana , Nebraska , North Dakota , Oklahoma , South Carolina , South Dakota , Tennessee , Utah , and West Virginia have backed Schmitt 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Texas lawsuit .
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has filed a separate brief ( pdf ) `` respecting '' the Texas suit .
The New York Times reported that Trump asked Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) on Tuesday to argue the case if the Supreme Court hears it , and Cruz has agreed .
Late Wednesday , Trump—who has openly pleaded with the Supreme Court to undo Biden 's decisive victory—filed a brief with the high court seeking to intervene in support of Paxton 's lawsuit .
Kristen Clarke , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law , said the president 's filing `` reads like a rally speech . ''
`` Were the Supreme Court to agree to hear this meritless suit brought by Texas , '' Clarke added , `` we might as well toss the Constitution . ''
The Supreme Court—to which Trump successfully appointed three right-wing justices over his four years in office—has not yet decided whether to take up the case , despite viral right-wing social media posts to the contrary .
In a blog post , Richard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University of California , Irvine , called Paxton 's complaint `` a press release masquerading as a lawsuit . ''
He elaborated : While Paxton 's lawsuit will almost certainly fail , observers warned that the willingness of so many top state law enforcement officials to back the effort to overturn the presidential election highlights the threat the right will continue to pose to democracy long after Trump leaves office .
`` The president will leave the White House on January 20 .
The conservative attorneys who have become radicalized under his influence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the country , '' Slate 's Mark Joseph Stern wrote Wednesday .
`` Paxton 's suit asks the Supreme Court to throw out every vote in four states won by Joe Biden—Georgia , Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin—then direct each state 's legislature to declare Trump the winner . ''
`` This act would constitute the single biggest incident of voter nullification in American history , '' Stern continued .
`` Paxton alleges that all four states illegally expanded mail voting , permitted egregious fraud , then concealed evidence that Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basis in truth for his factual claims and no basis in law for his legal theories . ''
Clarke of the Lawyers ' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law added on Twitter , `` This is what anti-democratic conduct looks like . ''

With the Trump operation's legal effort to overturn the November election going nowhere, nearly 20 Republican attorneys general have decided to throw their support behind Texas AG Ken Paxton's desperate—and, according to analysts, doomed-to-fail—Supreme Court lawsuit against four key battleground states that have certified President-elect Joe Biden's victories.
Filed on Tuesday and enthusiastically celebrated in right-wing circles, Paxton's lawsuit (pdf) baselessly alleges "significant and unconstitutional irregularities" in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and pleads with the high court to delay next week's scheduled certification of presidential electors for those four states.
That the lawsuit was mocked as "utter garbage" and "factually untethered" by legal experts did not dissuade 18 Republican attorneys general, led by Missouri AG Eric Schmitt, from expressing support for Paxton's effort.
As of this writing, the Republican attorneys general of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia have backed Schmitt's amicus brief (pdf) in support of the Texas lawsuit. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has filed a separate brief (pdf) "respecting" the Texas suit.
The New York Timesreported that Trump asked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Tuesday to argue the case if the Supreme Court hears it, and Cruz has agreed.
Late Wednesday, Trump—who has openly pleaded with the Supreme Court to undo Biden's decisive victory—filed a brief with the high court seeking to intervene in support of Paxton's lawsuit. Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said the president's filing "reads like a rally speech."
"Were the Supreme Court to agree to hear this meritless suit brought by Texas," Clarke added, "we might as well toss the Constitution."
The Supreme Court—to which Trump successfully appointed three right-wing justices over his four years in office—has not yet decided whether to take up the case, despite viral right-wing social media posts to the contrary.
In a blog post, Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, called Paxton's complaint "a press release masquerading as a lawsuit." He elaborated:
Texas doesn't have standing to raise these claims as it has no say over how other states choose electors; it could raise these issues in other cases and does not need to go straight to the Supreme Court; it waited too late to sue; the remedy Texas suggests of disenfranchising tens of millions of voters after the fact is unconstitutional; there's no reason to believe the voting conducted in any of the states was done unconstitutionally; it's too late for the Supreme Court to grant a remedy even if the claims were meritorious (they are not).
While Paxton's lawsuit will almost certainly fail, observers warned that the willingness of so many top state law enforcement officials to back the effort to overturn the presidential election highlights the threat the right will continue to pose to democracy long after Trump leaves office.
"The president will leave the White House on January 20. The conservative attorneys who have become radicalized under his influence, however, will remain in power across the country," Slate's Mark Joseph Stern wrote Wednesday. "Paxton's suit asks the Supreme Court to throw out every vote in four states won by Joe Biden—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—then direct each state's legislature to declare Trump the winner."
"This act would constitute the single biggest incident of voter nullification in American history," Stern continued. "Paxton alleges that all four states illegally expanded mail voting, permitted egregious fraud, then concealed evidence that Democrats stole the election. There is no basis in truth for his factual claims and no basis in law for his legal theories."
Clarke of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law added on Twitter, "This is what anti-democratic conduct looks like."


alternet--2020-12-10--Trump is practically begging for the Supreme Court to slap him down

If President Donald Trump were completely desperate for unnecessary but completely decisive humiliation before the United States Supreme Court , it 's hard to imagine that he 'd be acting any differently .
On Wednesday , he threw his weight behind a Texas lawsuit filed before the Supreme Court , asking to intervene in his capacity as a candidate .
The Texas case , absurdly , seeks to overturn the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania , Georgia , Michigan , and Wisconsin , all of which voted for President-elect Biden , votes that have been officially certified .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that because he objects to some of the ways in which those states ran their elections , the certified results should be investigated and potentially thrown out , with the state legislatures left to pick appoint their own electors ( presumably for Trump ) .
Trump 's intervention in the lawsuit is patently ridiculous .
He seems to go a bit further than Texas , suggesting that the election certifications be annulled and the legislatures appoint their own electors or that the states ' electors blocked entirely .
This would , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winning majority of the remaining electors , but we can ignore this detail .
The president 's motion before the court is laughable .
It claimed , for instance : `` President Trump prevailed on nearly every historical indicia of success in presidential elections .
For example , he won both Florida and Ohio ; no candidate in history—Republican or Democrat—has ever lost the election after winning both States . ''
This last claim is simply not true .
President John F. Kennedy won the presidency in 1960 without either Florida or Ohio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true , it would be irrelevant .
Electoral coalitions shift all the time .
Even if Biden 's winning collection of states was a historic anomaly , that would n't show it was a fraudulent or illegitimate win .
And in fact , Biden 's victory was completely in line with what expert election analysts had expected before the outcome was known .
For example , Sabato 's Crystal Ball predicted the outcome almost perfectly ahead of time , missing the result in just one state : North Carolina .
But we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The fact that he submitted the filing at all shows his utter desperation .
Even before the election , he posited that the election would end up before the Supreme Court , a point which he used to argue in favor of rushing to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett .
He seems to have convinced himself that with six conservative justices — and five justices seen as reliably conservative , if you discount Chief Justice John Roberts — will be eager to just hand him victory .
The problem is , one ca @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court .
It needs to go through the proper channels .
The Texas case tries to exploit one loophole in the regular channels .
When one state sues another , the only proper venue in the Supreme Court .
Since Texas was able to submit its case right to the Supreme Court , Trump hopes he can tag along for the ride , though there 's no reason to believe this gambit will work .
More problematic , though , is the Texas lawsuit itself .
It 's simply ridiculous , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see it that way .
It may dismiss it out of hand , or dismiss it after considering the merits .
The court 's conservatives certainly have their Republican Party sympathies , but they also have genuine beliefs about how the law should work .
And this case does n't seem to conform to any of them .
First , it 's not clear why a state should have legal standing to sue another state over its election processes .
If this were permitted , it could unleash a flood of lawsuits of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election laws .
This is not what the justices want to deal with , and it 's obviously untenable .
Second , and perhaps more importantly , even if a state did have a credible legal objection to another state 's election law that the Supreme Court was willing to hear , the case comes far too late .
Any challenge should have come before the election was actually conducted , not after — this is a reason many of the post-election lawsuits on the Trump side have failed .
If this kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would just guarantee that every election could be contested after the fact by the loser .
This is no way to run a democracy Third , the lawsuit is not consistent .
Texas is just challenging states that it thinks it needs to flip to allow Trump to win .
Other states , including Texas itself , made changes to its election law that could be challenged under the lawsuit 's theory .
This is a clear sign of political cynicism , rather than bona fide legal grievance .
Fourth , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were genuine objections to a state 's election laws , the court may be open to addressing them .
But the solutions would need to come before votes are actually cast .
Instead , the case suggests that the state legislatures may just completely overturn the result of the people 's vote because they do n't like the outcome .
This is essentially mass disenfranchisement as a solution to relatively minor process complaints .
In short : It 's not going to happen .
If it were to happen , the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But Trump is all in .
After more than 50 election-related lawsuits filed by him and his allies , all but one of which resulted in complete failure , Trump claimed on Twitter that this lawsuit is the real deal : He wo n't get a victory .
There 's no plausible case to be made .
But by putting all his marbles in the basket , he 's setting himself up for a giant fall .

If President Donald Trump were completely desperate for unnecessary but completely decisive humiliation before the United States Supreme Court, it's hard to imagine that he'd be acting any differently.
On Wednesday, he threw his weight behind a Texas lawsuit filed before the Supreme Court, asking to intervene in his capacity as a candidate. The Texas case, absurdly, seeks to overturn the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, all of which voted for President-elect Biden, votes that have been officially certified. Essentially, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton argued that because he objects to some of the ways in which those states ran their elections, the certified results should be investigated and potentially thrown out, with the state legislatures left to pick appoint their own electors (presumably for Trump).
Trump's intervention in the lawsuit is patently ridiculous. He seems to go a bit further than Texas, suggesting that the election certifications be annulled and the legislatures appoint their own electors or that the states' electors blocked entirely. This would, in fact, still leave Biden with a winning majority of the remaining electors, but we can ignore this detail.
The president's motion before the court is laughable. It claimed, for instance: "President Trump prevailed on nearly every historical indicia of success in presidential elections. For example, he won both Florida and Ohio; no candidate in history—Republican or Democrat—has ever lost the election after winning both States."
This last claim is simply not true. President John F. Kennedy won the presidency in 1960 without either Florida or Ohio. Moreover, even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. Electoral coalitions shift all the time. Even if Biden's winning collection of states was a historic anomaly, that wouldn't show it was a fraudulent or illegitimate win. And in fact, Biden's victory was completely in line with what expert election analysts had expected before the outcome was known. For example, Sabato's Crystal Ball predicted the outcome almost perfectly ahead of time, missing the result in just one state: North Carolina.
But we can ignore Trump's factually erroneous filing. The fact that he submitted the filing at all shows his utter desperation. Even before the election, he posited that the election would end up before the Supreme Court, a point which he used to argue in favor of rushing to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett. He seems to have convinced himself that with six conservative justices — and five justices seen as reliably conservative, if you discount Chief Justice John Roberts — will be eager to just hand him victory.
The problem is, one can't just take an issue to the Supreme Court. It needs to go through the proper channels. The Texas case tries to exploit one loophole in the regular channels. When one state sues another, the only proper venue in the Supreme Court. Since Texas was able to submit its case right to the Supreme Court, Trump hopes he can tag along for the ride, though there's no reason to believe this gambit will work.
More problematic, though, is the Texas lawsuit itself. It's simply ridiculous, and the Supreme Court is nearly guaranteed to see it that way. It may dismiss it out of hand, or dismiss it after considering the merits. The court's conservatives certainly have their Republican Party sympathies, but they also have genuine beliefs about how the law should work. And this case doesn't seem to conform to any of them.
First, it's not clear why a state should have legal standing to sue another state over its election processes. If this were permitted, it could unleash a flood of lawsuits of states trying to overturn other states' election laws. This is not what the justices want to deal with, and it's obviously untenable.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, even if a state did have a credible legal objection to another state's election law that the Supreme Court was willing to hear, the case comes far too late. Any challenge should have come before the election was actually conducted, not after — this is a reason many of the post-election lawsuits on the Trump side have failed. If this kind of challenge were allowed to proceed, it would just guarantee that every election could be contested after the fact by the loser. This is no way to run a democracy
Third, the lawsuit is not consistent. Texas is just challenging states that it thinks it needs to flip to allow Trump to win. Other states, including Texas itself, made changes to its election law that could be challenged under the lawsuit's theory. This is a clear sign of political cynicism, rather than bona fide legal grievance.
Fourth, the remedy proposed is preposterous. If there were genuine objections to a state's election laws, the court may be open to addressing them. But the solutions would need to come before votes are actually cast. Instead, the case suggests that the state legislatures may just completely overturn the result of the people's vote because they don't like the outcome. This is essentially mass disenfranchisement as a solution to relatively minor process complaints.
In short: It's not going to happen. If it were to happen, the Supreme Court would be throwing democracy out the window.
But Trump is all in. After more than 50 election-related lawsuits filed by him and his allies, all but one of which resulted in complete failure, Trump claimed on Twitter that this lawsuit is the real deal:
He won't get a victory. There's no plausible case to be made. But by putting all his marbles in the basket, he's setting himself up for a giant fall.


alternet--2020-12-10--How a 'science-fiction scenario of an engineered planet' has become a reality

As human consumption and pollution have led to a reduction in the Earth 's biodiversity , those same activities have helped to create so many human-made objects that the weight of such materials is expected to exceed that of all people , other living animals , and plants by the end of 2020 .
Scientists at the Weizmann Institute of Sciences in Rehovot , Israel , published ( pdf ) a study in Nature on Wednesday showing that the weight of all human-made objects , or `` anthropogenic mass '' —including automobiles , buildings , roads , and smaller plastics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or one trillion metric tons .
`` We find that Earth is exactly at the crossover point ; in the year 2020 , the anthropogenic mass , which has recently doubled roughly every 20 years , will surpass all global living biomass , '' wrote the scientists in Nature .
`` On average , for each person on the globe , anthropogenic mass equal to more than his or her body weight is produced every week . ''
While the weight of human-made objects has doubled every two decades recently , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; the United Nations warned in a report last year that about one million species are now threatened with extinction as humans have encroached on natural habitats for agricultural and development purposes , exploited wild animals , and driven the climate crisis through fossil fuel extraction .
The significance of the new study regarding the weight of anthropogenic mass `` is symbolic in the sense that it tells us something about the major role that humanity now plays in shaping the world and the state of the Earth around us , '' Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , told BBC News .
The new research , wrote Jan Zalasiewicz and Mark Williams , professors of palaeobiology at the University of Leicester in the U.K. , upends the long-held idea of `` a natural world that dwarfed humanity and its creations '' : The scientists behind the study found that in 1900 , human-made objects weighed roughly 35 billion tonnes , and that the weight doubled by the middle of the 20th century .
Since the Great Acceleration after World War II , `` our stuff increased several-fold to a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of the century , '' wrote Zalasiewicz and Williams at The Conversation .
`` In coming years , the living world will be far outweighed—threefold by 2040 , they say , if current trends hold . ''
The scientists wrote in their study that their `` quantification of the human enterprise '' provides new evidence that the planet has entered `` the human-induced epoch of the Anthropocene '' —a geological age in which humanity 's impacts on the living world will be visible in sediments millions of years from now .

As human consumption and pollution have led to a reduction in the Earth's biodiversity, those same activities have helped to create so many human-made objects that the weight of such materials is expected to exceed that of all people, other living animals, and plants by the end of 2020.
Scientists at the Weizmann Institute of Sciences in Rehovot, Israel, published (pdf) a study in Nature on Wednesday showing that the weight of all human-made objects, or "anthropogenic mass"—including automobiles, buildings, roads, and smaller plastics and other materials—is estimated at one teratonne, or one trillion metric tons.
"We find that Earth is exactly at the crossover point; in the year 2020, the anthropogenic mass, which has recently doubled roughly every 20 years, will surpass all global living biomass," wrote the scientists in Nature. "On average, for each person on the globe, anthropogenic mass equal to more than his or her body weight is produced every week."
While the weight of human-made objects has doubled every two decades recently, that of living animals and plants has dropped; the United Nations warned in a report last year that about one million species are now threatened with extinction as humans have encroached on natural habitats for agricultural and development purposes, exploited wild animals, and driven the climate crisis through fossil fuel extraction.
The significance of the new study regarding the weight of anthropogenic mass "is symbolic in the sense that it tells us something about the major role that humanity now plays in shaping the world and the state of the Earth around us," Dr. Ron Milo, who led the research, told BBC News.
The new research, wrote Jan Zalasiewicz and Mark Williams, professors of palaeobiology at the University of Leicester in the U.K., upends the long-held idea of "a natural world that dwarfed humanity and its creations":
Our constructions have now—indeed, spookily, just this year—attained the same mass as that of all living organisms on Earth. The human enterprise is growing fast, too, while nature keeps shrinking. The science-fiction scenario of an engineered planet is already here.
[...]
Since the mid-20th century, the Earth has been set on a new, human-driven trajectory... The weight of evidence, here, seems unarguable.
The scientists behind the study found that in 1900, human-made objects weighed roughly 35 billion tonnes, and that the weight doubled by the middle of the 20th century.
Since the Great Acceleration after World War II, "our stuff increased several-fold to a little over half a trillion tonnes by the end of the century," wrote Zalasiewicz and Williams at The Conversation. "In coming years, the living world will be far outweighed—threefold by 2040, they say, if current trends hold."
The scientists wrote in their study that their "quantification of the human enterprise" provides new evidence that the planet has entered "the human-induced epoch of the Anthropocene"—a geological age in which humanity's impacts on the living world will be visible in sediments millions of years from now.


alternet--2020-12-09--British journalist Mehdi Hasan slams McConnell for taking his 'grim reaper' nickname to a terrifying

British journalist Mehdi Hasan slams McConnell for taking his 'grim reaper' nickname to a terrifying new level

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) has long been described as the `` grim reaper '' of politics .
The staunch Republican has reveled in the nickname he earned for brining death to Democratic legislation .
In fact , there have even been times when the Kentucky senator has boasted about the unsavory moniker .
But now , McConnell is being sharply criticized even more because his tactics of alienation thwart the efforts of the Democratic Party are now taking a direct toll on the American public .
An editorial published by NBC News highlights the dangerous impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus relief bills .
Based on his latest actions amid COVID relief negotiations and the grim upticks in coronavirus cases across the country , the editorial highlights how `` McConnell is the grim reaper in a much more literal sense . ''
Although coronavirus cases are alarmingly high in states across the country as hospitals are on the brink of reaching ICU capacity , McConnell continues to stall negotiation efforts and tie up funding for American workers , small businesses , healthcare systems and more .
As a result of his actions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The editorial points out the subsequent occurrences as it highlights the problem with McConnell 's laser focus on appointing more conservative judges instead of focusing on the more important matter at hand : the pandemic .
It explained : [ S ] hamefully , such warnings seem to have no impact on McConnell .
He has turned the Senate into a judge-confirming machine , even as the virus ravages the nation and multiple Covid-19 relief bills passed by the House of Representatives languish on his desk .
Sen. Ron Wyden , ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with his take on Congress ' ability to get things done for the well being of the American public if it were not for McConnell 's obstructive impact and `` political games . ''
`` Congress knows how to help workers and families .
It knows how to prevent the looming recession , '' Wyden tweeted as another grim unemployment report was released .
`` One person is standing in the way .
Mitch McConnell 's political games are costing lives and livelihoods . ''
As McConnell continues to wreak havoc , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 200,000 coronavirus cases each day , with the average daily death toll reaching well over 2,000 .
As of Wednesday , Dec. 9 , more than 15.5 million coronavirus cases have been confirmed in the United States .
The cumulative death toll stands at more than 295,000 people as of this writing .

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has long been described as the "grim reaper" of politics. The staunch Republican has reveled in the nickname he earned for brining death to Democratic legislation. In fact, there have even been times when the Kentucky senator has boasted about the unsavory moniker.
But now, McConnell is being sharply criticized even more because his tactics of alienation thwart the efforts of the Democratic Party are now taking a direct toll on the American public.
An editorial published by NBC News highlights the dangerous impact of McConnell's ongoing attempts to stall coronavirus relief bills. Based on his latest actions amid COVID relief negotiations and the grim upticks in coronavirus cases across the country, the editorial highlights how "McConnell is the grim reaper in a much more literal sense."
Although coronavirus cases are alarmingly high in states across the country as hospitals are on the brink of reaching ICU capacity, McConnell continues to stall negotiation efforts and tie up funding for American workers, small businesses, healthcare systems and more. As a result of his actions, the death toll also continues to rise. The editorial points out the subsequent occurrences as it highlights the problem with McConnell's laser focus on appointing more conservative judges instead of focusing on the more important matter at hand: the pandemic. It explained:
[S]hamefully, such warnings seem to have no impact on McConnell. He has turned the Senate into a judge-confirming machine, even as the virus ravages the nation and multiple Covid-19 relief bills passed by the House of Representatives languish on his desk.
Sen. Ron Wyden, (D-Ore.) also weighed in via Twitter with his take on Congress' ability to get things done for the well being of the American public if it were not for McConnell's obstructive impact and "political games."
"Congress knows how to help workers and families. It knows how to prevent the looming recession," Wyden tweeted as another grim unemployment report was released. "One person is standing in the way. Mitch McConnell's political games are costing lives and livelihoods."
As McConnell continues to wreak havoc, the country is reporting an average of nearly 200,000 coronavirus cases each day, with the average daily death toll reaching well over 2,000. As of Wednesday, Dec. 9, more than 15.5 million coronavirus cases have been confirmed in the United States. The cumulative death toll stands at more than 295,000 people as of this writing.


alternet--2020-12-11--The new civil war is here: Right-wing grievance politics is killing thousands every day

On Wednesday , the United States set a devastating new record in the coronavirus pandemic : 3,124 people dead in one day .
This was the first time the daily number of deaths has exceeded 3,000 , but it 's the first time the daily number of deaths has exceeded a dark benchmark that so many people have invoked , over and over again , since the beginning of the pandemic : It 's more people lost in one day to COVID-19 than were lost in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 , 2001 .
There 's been criticism from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comparison , but it 's understandable why it comes so readily to mind .
The startling juxtaposition is meant to jar people out of the tendency to let all those COVID-19 deaths become a faceless statistic .
The idea is to get people to take the virus seriously , since it 's far more likely to kill you than a random attack by terrorists .
But there 's a political side to this , as well : Liberals or leftists who draw this comparison are trying to draw attention to conservative hypocrisy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ social distancing are the very same Republicans whose panicked and partisan overreaction to 9/11 led us into two disastrous wars .
If the deaths of 2,977 people in one day from a terrorist attack was so world-changing , why do conservatives refuse to treat the death toll of this pandemic seriously ?
As difficult as this is to process , the coronavirus has killed nearly 100 times as many people as died on 9/11 .
The answer , unfortunately , is because of the American culture war , which is getting uglier and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right used to mock `` identity politics , '' the tribal sense of identity among conservatives seems to trump all other considerations these days .
Displaying such tribal loyalty by attacking and antagonizing liberals matters more to many conservatives than their own health and safety .
That 's doubly true in the face of a disease that is disproportionately affecting poorer people and people of color , allowing white conservatives to imagine that their `` tribe '' is not being hurt by the pandemic .
For years now , we have lived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and for good reason .
There have been multiple deadly terrorist attacks — such as the mass shootings in El Paso and Pittsburgh — inspired by Donald Trump and the white nationalist rhetoric he helped mainstream .
Wannabe terrorists were caught plotting the kidnapping of the governor of Michigan .
The `` boogaloo '' movement of angry white men is openly gunning for a new civil war .
Some commentators worry that American politics have become so bitter and polarized that such a violent internal conflict could actually happen .
In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has already come , just not in the fashion that we imagined it .
This pandemic that 's washing across the country is , in many ways , a manifestation of the same tensions that have led to fears of terrorism and civil war .
One major reason why the pandemic is so bad in the U.S. — which has more cases than any other country in the world , and consistently rates among the worst 15 countries on a per-capita basis — is what the press delicately calls `` partisan divisions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the real problem is the American right , and its profound loathing for a rapidly changing and diversifying country .
From the very beginning of this pandemic , Trump , his supporters and the right-wing media have prioritized sticking it to the liberals over saving their own skins .
In the end , grievance-mad conservatives — furious at a majority that rejects their claims to cultural superiority — did n't have to pick up a single weapon .
All they needed to do was refuse to take this pandemic like the public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this out .
A paper published in Nature on Nov. 2 — and therefore lost in the election media frenzy — showed that partisan identity was a stronger predictor of how people reacted to the coronavirus than factors like age , race or the severity of the virus where they lived .
Researchers hoped that conservative reluctance to practice social distancing would decrease as the pandemic grew worse , but the opposite happened .
Conservatives grew more likely to take risks , not less .
High levels of right-wing media consumption made refusal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But individual behavior is only a small piece of the puzzle .
Republicans ' tribal hatred of liberals and total-war approach to partisan politics is probably the biggest single factor in why the coronavirus spiraled so badly out of control .
This did n't happen just because of Donald Trump and his tendency to see the pandemic , and all measures to contain it , as personal affronts to be angrily resisted at every turn .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , motivated by his desire to maintain his enormous power in Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radar , but the damage he 's doing is at least as bad .
McConnell has made it obvious for months that his goal is to pass no coronavirus relief bill at all , or to gut any such bill so thoroughly that it barely helps anyone below the CEO class .
He clearly feels that blocking such a bill will lead to no political blowback .
In part , he believes he can pin the blame on the Democrats , and also that voters are so bitterly divided along partisan lines that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundreds of thousands of deaths will turn Republican voters against him .
After all , he has the 2020 election , when 74 million voters turned out for Trump — and Republicans made unexpected gains in down-ballot voting — as proof of that .
McConnell 's refusal to pass a meaningful relief bill has n't just caused economic devastation .
It has also contributed to the massive death toll .
First , because the lack of any real relief has stymied the national health care response , for lack of funding .
Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack of economic relief has forced thousands of businesses to remain open and forced millions of workers to go to work who might have otherwise been able to stay home .
Far too many people have been forced to choose between a paycheck and their family 's health , and are out there doing service-industry jobs that expose them and their loved ones to the virus .
The boogaloo boys got their civil war .
It did n't come in the form they expected , and it lacks the drama of bullets flying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toll has surpassed that of all American wars except World War II and the actual Civil War .
Of course the coronavirus was coming to our shores one way or another , but what has made it so devastating to America was the ingrained rage and tribalist identity politics of the right .
Just as with civil wars that are fought with bombs and guns , the price is being paid by everyone , not just those who fired the first shots .

On Wednesday, the United States set a devastating new record in the coronavirus pandemic: 3,124 people dead in one day. This was the first time the daily number of deaths has exceeded 3,000, but it's the first time the daily number of deaths has exceeded a dark benchmark that so many people have invoked, over and over again, since the beginning of the pandemic: It's more people lost in one dayto COVID-19 than were lost in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
There's been criticism from various corners of those who make this comparison, but it's understandable why it comes so readily to mind. The startling juxtaposition is meant to jar people out of the tendency to let all those COVID-19 deaths become a faceless statistic. The idea is to get people to take the virus seriously, since it's far more likely to kill you than a random attack by terrorists.
But there's a political side to this, as well: Liberals or leftists who draw this comparison are trying to draw attention to conservative hypocrisy. The Republicans who are pooh-poohing mask-wearing and social distancing are the very same Republicans whose panicked and partisan overreaction to 9/11 led us into two disastrous wars. If the deaths of 2,977 people in one day from a terrorist attack was so world-changing , why do conservatives refuse to treat the death toll of this pandemic seriously? As difficult as this is to process, the coronavirus has killed nearly 100 times as many people as died on 9/11.
The answer, unfortunately, is because of the American culture war, which is getting uglier and more uncontrollable all the time. While the right used to mock "identity politics," the tribal sense of identity among conservatives seems to trump all other considerations these days. Displaying such tribal loyalty by attacking and antagonizing liberals matters more to many conservatives than their own health and safety. That's doubly true in the face of a disease that is disproportionately affecting poorer people and people of color, allowing white conservatives to imagine that their "tribe" is not being hurt by the pandemic.
For years now, we have lived amid rising fears of right-wing domestic terrorism, and for good reason. There have been multiple deadly terrorist attacks — such as the mass shootings in El Paso and Pittsburgh — inspired by Donald Trump and the white nationalist rhetoric he helped mainstream. Wannabe terrorists were caught plotting the kidnapping of the governor of Michigan. The "boogaloo" movement of angry white men is openly gunning for a new civil war. Some commentators worry that American politics have become so bitter and polarized that such a violent internal conflict could actually happen.
In a very real sense, the civil war has already come, just not in the fashion that we imagined it. This pandemic that's washing across the country is, in many ways, a manifestation of the same tensions that have led to fears of terrorism and civil war. One major reason why the pandemic is so bad in the U.S. — which has more cases than any other country in the world, and consistently rates among the worst 15 countries on a per-capita basis — is what the press delicately calls "partisan divisions."
But let's face it, the real problem is the American right, and its profound loathing for a rapidly changing and diversifying country. From the very beginning of this pandemic, Trump, his supporters and the right-wing media have prioritized sticking it to the liberals over saving their own skins. In the end, grievance-mad conservatives — furious at a majority that rejects their claims to cultural superiority — didn't have to pick up a single weapon. All they needed to do was refuse to take this pandemic like the public health emergency it is.
Research has borne this out. A paper published in Nature on Nov. 2 — and therefore lost in the election media frenzy — showed that partisan identity was a stronger predictor of how people reacted to the coronavirus than factors like age, race or the severity of the virus where they lived. Researchers hoped that conservative reluctance to practice social distancing would decrease as the pandemic grew worse, but the opposite happened. Conservatives grew more likely to take risks, not less. High levels of right-wing media consumption made refusal to take basic precautions much worse.
But individual behavior is only a small piece of the puzzle. Republicans' tribal hatred of liberals and total-war approach to partisan politics is probably the biggest single factor in why the coronavirus spiraled so badly out of control.
This didn't happen just because of Donald Trump and his tendency to see the pandemic, and all measures to contain it, as personal affronts to be angrily resisted at every turn. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, motivated by his desire to maintain his enormous power in Washington, has been flying more under the radar, but the damage he's doing is at least as bad.
McConnell has made it obvious for months that his goal is to pass no coronavirus relief bill at all, or to gut any such bill so thoroughly that it barely helps anyone below the CEO class. He clearly feels that blocking such a bill will lead to no political blowback. In part, he believes he can pin the blame on the Democrats, and also that voters are so bitterly divided along partisan lines that not even a massive economic catastrophe and hundreds of thousands of deaths will turn Republican voters against him. After all, he has the 2020 election, when 74 million voters turned out for Trump — and Republicans made unexpected gains in down-ballot voting — as proof of that.
McConnell's refusal to pass a meaningful relief bill hasn't just caused economic devastation. It has also contributed to the massive death toll. First, because the lack of any real relief has stymied the national health care response, for lack of funding. Second, and perhaps more important, the lack of economic relief has forced thousands of businesses to remain open and forced millions of workers to go to work who might have otherwise been able to stay home. Far too many people have been forced to choose between a paycheck and their family's health, and are out there doing service-industry jobs that expose them and their loved ones to the virus.
The boogaloo boys got their civil war. It didn't come in the form they expected, and it lacks the drama of bullets flying on battlefields. But the actual death toll has surpassed that of all American wars except World War II and the actual Civil War. Of course the coronavirus was coming to our shores one way or another, but what has made it so devastating to America was the ingrained rage and tribalist identity politics of the right. Just as with civil wars that are fought with bombs and guns, the price is being paid by everyone, not just those who fired the first shots.


alternet--2020-12-10--Trump's biggest betrayal yet could come in the last days of his presidency

Donald Trump is a lame duck .
His decisions in the final weeks of his presidency will be driven by delusion , self-enrichment , and trying to handicap Joe Biden so Trump wo n't be shamed by comparison .
He could wreak untold damage on America unless he 's finally checked by Congress .
In the past his advisers stopped him from making misguided decisions , but not anymore .
After the election he replaced top Pentagon officials with sycophants .
He fired Homeland Security Director Chris Krebs and Defense Secretary Mark Esper by tweet .
Those firings could foretell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A disturbing pro-Russian pattern in Trump 's decisions suggest the worst is yet to come .
His continued alignment with Russian interests must be viewed in light of his decade-long dependency on Russia for financial survival after numerous bankruptcies .
`` Russians make up a … disproportionate cross-section of … our assets , '' said , Donald Trump Jr. Eric Trump bragged , `` We do n't rely on American banks ; we have all the funding we need out of Russia . ''
Trump 's financial records show he owes $ 421 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the questionable ability to repay it .
Some estimates have it at $ 1.1Band put Trump 's net worth at a fraction of what he claims .
U.S. banks stopped lending to him in the mid-2000s , so he 'll need help from somewhere else .
Russia is a likely go-to source .
It 's therefore not irrational to worry that Trump may have cut a deal with Vladimir Putin .
It could look something like this : Trump weakens NATO 's defenses against Russian aggression .
In return Putin continues to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spill the beans about Trump laundering Russian money through his golf courses and condo sales , Trump 's links to Russian organized crime , or his pursuit of Russian election help .
Trumpreciprocates by pardoning Russians indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller .
The plot thickens : Trump 's withdrawal of troops throughout Europe including 12,000 troops from Germany , which Republicans and Democrats in Congress are trying to block , will degrade NATO'sdefenses .
The downsizing is scheduled to occur before Biden takes office , complicating his plans for rebuilding America 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Open Skies treaty which provided for U.S. and European reconnaissance flights to surveil Russian military activity along Europe 's border , and banned Russian missiles capable of reaching Europe in minutes .
Trump wants to liquidate the specialized aircraft that conducted the flights , which will make it harder for Biden to reinstate the surveillance .
A Putin deal would n't be the first time Trump put personal gain ahead of U.S. security interests , over objections from the U.S. military and both parties .
Trump and Ivanka took payoffs from China after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Chinese tech company ZTE .
Trump sold $ 8.4 billion of arms to Saudi Arabia after boasting that the Saudis spend millions on his businesses .
Trump 's troop withdrawal from Syria was carried out against bipartisan and military outrage .
It pushed Turkey to partner with Putin in forcing the Kurds from Syria .
Turkey is NATO 's most important military deterrent to Russian aggression .
Its partnership with Putin strained Turkey 's commitment to NATO , and creates concern over whether Turkey would deploy troops to resist a Russian incursion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump 's businesses in Turkey influenced his foreign policy .
His business interests there include Trump Towers in Istanbul .
Russia has been targeting its neighbors Estonia , Latvia , and Lithuania – all NATO members -- ever since it lost control of them when the Soviet Union collapsed .
If Putin were to exploit the opportunity Trump handed him , those three Baltic nations would be in Russia 's crosshairs .
It seems unimaginable that any American president would facilitate or that Congress would tolerate a Russian incursion into NATO .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far-fetched , given his history of compromising American interests for his own enrichment , his incessant devotion to Putin , his disregard for American security interests ( he does n't read daily briefings ) , his conviction he can get away with anything , and the complicity of Trump 's Republican subjects in Congress .
It may seem improbable that Putin would venture militarily into NATO territory before Biden takes office .
But it 's worth noting Russian forces are ready to do so .
They could reach the outskirts of Estonia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to the Rand Corporation .
Russia currently has a large military force along Europe 's Eastern border and a history of invading or controlling nearby sovereign nations such as Georgia , Crimea , and the Ukraine .
Putin knows Biden would probably follow Obama 's example of acquiescing to Russian aggression , and that Estonia 's and Latvia'slarge ethnic Russian minorities would be welcoming .
Trump has made his commitment to defending Estonia , Latvia , and Lithuania conditional on them `` paying their fair share '' – a point on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has the motive , means and the inclination .
Given the opportunity it 's not unthinkable that he 'd make the move .
If he does , Biden would face the dilemma of what to do about Russia 's presence in NATO territory .
Trump has piled a hundred last straws on the backs of Congressional Republicans , but their backs have n't broken yet .
If Russian troops entered NATO territory , that could be the straw that finally breaks their loyalty to him .
Congressional Republicans should fear Trump 's threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his political clout .
Many among the 74 million who voted for Trump voted for the party and its conservative policies -- not for the man .
Others bought into Republican propaganda warning that Biden would institute socialism and questioning his mental acuity .
They settled for Trump .
But they are n't cultists with blind allegiance who will adhere to Trump after he 's lost his presidential powers .
There 's more to worry about .
Congressional Republicans and Trump 's inner circle are concerned that Trump is delusional with no grip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stumbles , slurs , gets confused , has trouble synthesizing information and exhibits signs of dementia .
Psychologist John Gartner believes Trump suffers from `` malignant narcissism , '' a diagnosis which combines paranoia , sociopathy , and sadism -- '' the closest thing psychiatry has to a true human monster . ''
More than 800 mental-health professionals warned , `` failing to…understand the psychological aspects '' of humiliating Trump `` could lead to catastrophic outcomes . ''
Now that he 's been humiliated there 's no telling what he 's capable of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recommended invoking the Twenty-fifth Amendment to remove Trump .
Maybe it 's time to follow their advice before he scorches the earth behind him .
*Neil Baron is an attorney who has represented many institutions involved in the international markets and advised various parts of the federal government on economic issues .

Donald Trump is a lame duck. His decisions in the final weeks of his presidency will be driven by delusion, self-enrichment, and trying to handicap Joe Biden so Trump won't be shamed by comparison. He could wreak untold damage on America unless he's finally checked by Congress.
In the past his advisers stopped him from making misguided decisions, but not anymore. After the election he replaced top Pentagon officials with sycophants. He fired Homeland SecurityDirector Chris Krebs and Defense Secretary Mark Esper by tweet. Those firings could foretell more unchecked decisions with disastrous consequences.
A disturbing pro-Russian pattern in Trump's decisions suggest the worst is yet to come. His continued alignment with Russian interests must be viewed in light of his decade-long dependency on Russia for financial survival after numerous bankruptcies. "Russians make up a … disproportionate cross-section of … our assets," said, Donald Trump Jr. Eric Trump bragged, "We don't rely on American banks; we have all the funding we need out of Russia."
Trump's financial records show he owes $421 million that comes due over four years with the questionable ability to repay it. Some estimates have it at $1.1Band put Trump's net worth at a fraction of what he claims. U.S. banks stopped lending to him in the mid-2000s, so he'll need help from somewhere else. Russia is a likely go-to source.
It's therefore not irrational to worry that Trump may have cut a deal with Vladimir Putin. It could look something like this: Trump weakens NATO's defenses against Russian aggression. In return Putin continues to keep Trump afloat financially and wouldn't spill the beans about Trump laundering Russian money through his golf courses and condo sales, Trump's links to Russian organized crime, or his pursuit of Russian election help. Trumpreciprocates by pardoning Russians indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
The plot thickens: Trump's withdrawal of troops throughout Europe including 12,000 troops from Germany, which Republicans and Democrats in Congress are trying to block, will degrade NATO'sdefenses. The downsizing is scheduled to occur before Biden takes office, complicating his plans for rebuilding America's commitment to NATO.
Trump terminated the Open Skies treaty which provided for U.S. and European reconnaissance flights to surveil Russian military activity along Europe's border, and banned Russian missiles capable of reaching Europe in minutes. Trump wants to liquidate the specialized aircraft that conducted the flights, which will make it harder for Biden to reinstate the surveillance.
A Putin deal wouldn't be the first time Trump put personal gain ahead of U.S. security interests, over objections from the U.S. military and both parties. Trump and Ivanka took payoffs from China after Trump lifted a bipartisan ban on sales to Chinese tech company ZTE. Trump sold $8.4 billion of arms to Saudi Arabia after boasting that the Saudis spend millions on his businesses.
Trump's troop withdrawal from Syria was carried out against bipartisan and military outrage. It pushed Turkey to partner with Putin in forcing the Kurds from Syria. Turkey is NATO's most important military deterrent to Russian aggression. Its partnership with Putin strained Turkey's commitment to NATO, and creates concern over whether Turkey would deploy troops to resist a Russian incursion into NATO territory. Three lawsuits allege Trump's businesses in Turkey influenced his foreign policy. His business interests there include Trump Towers in Istanbul.
Russia has been targeting its neighbors Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania – all NATO members -- ever since it lost control of them when the Soviet Union collapsed. If Putin were to exploit the opportunity Trump handed him, those three Baltic nations would be in Russia's crosshairs.
It seems unimaginable that any American president would facilitate or that Congress would tolerate a Russian incursion into NATO. But in Trump's case it's not so far-fetched, given his history of compromising American interests for his own enrichment, his incessant devotion to Putin, his disregard for American security interests (he doesn't read daily briefings), his conviction he can get away with anything, and the complicity of Trump's Republican subjects in Congress.
It may seem improbable that Putin would venture militarily into NATO territory before Biden takes office. But it's worth noting Russian forces are ready to do so. They could reach the outskirts of Estonia and Latvia in 30 to 60 hours, according to the Rand Corporation.
Russia currently has a large military force along Europe's Eastern border and a history of invading or controlling nearby sovereign nations such as Georgia,Crimea, and the Ukraine. Putin knows Biden would probably follow Obama's example of acquiescing to Russian aggression, and that Estonia's and Latvia'slarge ethnic Russian minorities would be welcoming.
Trump has made his commitment to defending Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania conditional on them "paying their fair share" – a point on which Trump still seems unsatisfied.
Putin has the motive, means and the inclination. Given the opportunity it's not unthinkable that he'd make the move. If he does, Biden would face the dilemma of what to do about Russia's presence in NATO territory.
Trump has piled a hundred last straws on the backs of Congressional Republicans, but their backs haven't broken yet. If Russian troops entered NATO territory, that could be the straw that finally breaks their loyalty to him.
Congressional Republicans should fear Trump's threat to America's national interest more than his political clout. Many among the 74 million who voted for Trump voted for the party and its conservative policies -- not for the man. Others bought into Republican propaganda warning that Biden would institute socialism and questioning his mental acuity. They settled for Trump. But they aren't cultists with blind allegiance who will adhere to Trump after he's lost his presidential powers.
There's more to worry about. Congressional Republicans and Trump's inner circle are concerned that Trump is delusional with no grip on reality. They note he regularly stumbles, slurs, gets confused, has trouble synthesizing information and exhibits signs of dementia.
Psychologist John Gartner believes Trump suffers from "malignant narcissism," a diagnosis which combines paranoia, sociopathy, and sadism --"the closest thing psychiatry has to a true human monster." More than 800 mental-health professionals warned, "failing to…understand the psychological aspects" of humiliating Trump "could lead to catastrophic outcomes." Now that he's been humiliated there's no telling what he's capable of.
Both Gartner and Trump's Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recommended invoking the Twenty-fifth Amendment to remove Trump. Maybe it's time to follow their advice before he scorches the earth behind him.
*Neil Baron is an attorney who has represented many institutions involved in the international markets and advised various parts of the federal government on economic issues.


alternet--2020-12-10--A tipping point for fossil fuels: How to stop big energy before the threshold of total catastrophe

As Donald Trump gave in to the demand that the transition process to the Biden years officially begin , the administration and its fossil-fuel allies doubled down on their efforts to implement destructive environmental policies that President Biden might try to reverse .
Those initiatives have included a campaign to jump-start oil drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ; the approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of the long-delayed Enbridge Line 3 tar sands pipeline in Minnesota ; and a push by utility companies to obtain funding and permits for the construction of 235 gas-fired power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expectancy .
In response , horrified progressives have sought to pressure the president-elect to appoint officials committed to blocking these and other similar projects .
But the strategy of pressuring leading Democrats has n't worked particularly well for environmentalists in the past and does n't seem to be working now .
Despite the movement 's full-court press for a real environmentalist presence in the administration , Biden designated Congressman Cedric Richmond as his `` liaison '' with that very movement .
Richmond voted in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline and , among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fifth-largest recipient of fossil-fuel cash .
Fortunately , a more promising strategy for defeating new fossil-fuel projects has been quietly bearing fruit , even in the Trump era .
Climate and Indigenous organizers have been attacking Big Energy companies and their investors , using economic pressure , boycotts , lawsuits , and disruptive direct-action tactics to impede drilling , interrupt the transportation of oil and gas , and choke off the flow of financing to , and insurance for , such projects .
This multipronged strategy has been so surprisingly successful that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of funding -- have begun divesting from fossil-fuel extraction and infrastructure .
As our desperately overheated planet continues setting records , understanding the largely unnoticed success of recent resistance movements is crucial if we hope to prevent total ecological collapse .
Why the Fossil-Fuel Industry Is Vulnerable , But the End of Fossil Fuels Is n't Inevitable The fossil-fuel industry and its champions in Congress recently complained that financial institutions were `` discriminating against America 's energy sector . ''
Specifically , banks were `` folding to activist environmental groups ' pressure '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new oil and gas operations . ''
Trump 's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ) responded by trying to force Wall Street to fund drilling in the Arctic Refuge and undertake other new fossil-fuel initiatives .
Why have the banks suddenly become so unwilling to invest in a longtime favorite sector of theirs ?
One reason is that easy-to-access fossil fuels are getting scarcer .
In this era of `` extreme '' energy , companies have found themselves investing striking amounts of Wall Street capital ( and wreaking environmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and transport hydrocarbon deposits from deep oceans , the Arctic , oil sands , and shale .
At a time when oil prices were reliably above $ 80 per barrel , such projects were enormously profitable .
But the fracking boom of the Obama years burst that bubble , with oil prices dropping as low as $ 40 per barrel by 2015 and remaining well under $ 80 during the first three years of the Trump administration .
Meanwhile , renewable energy sources ( especially wind ) were growing cheaper by the month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reducing the demand for carbon-based power .
The global spread of Covid-19 tanked energy demand , turning the drop in oil prices into a nosedive .
The pandemic itself , the economic lockdowns , the lack of travel that went with them , and a Saudi-Russian price war drove oil to a calamitous low of $ 19 per barrel in April 2020 .
The result was widespread bankruptcies among shale producers and weakening viability among major banks saddled with $ 300 billion in shaky hydrocarbon loans .
To prevent further losses , those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projects , while oil companies wrote down the value of their reserves , implicitly acknowledging that many of them may never be extracted .
A number of experts are now predicting that the `` fracking revolution '' has entered a period of terminal decline .
This potntially dire situation helps explain the latest Trump initiatives .
In order to lock in the next generation of major fossil-fuel projects , the industry 's partisans must convince the major oil companies to borrow and invest the many billions of dollars needed to complete them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reluctant banks to fund the projects and induce insurers to underwrite ventures that are enormously risky .
This is a daunting but not impossible undertaking .
The history of capitalism is strewn with the carcasses of major industries that fell into terminal crisis and were overtaken by new competitors .
When it came to manufacturing , water power was replaced by electric power , just as fossil-fueled transportation replaced horses .
But history is also littered with industries that somehow survived the challenge of apparently superior substitutes .
The nuclear power industry , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monumental costs , poor performance , and the environmental catastrophes associated with it .
The reason : the U.S. government invested vast resources in it , forced other institutions to do the same , and suppressed political and economic resistance to it .
The same thing could happen with fossil fuels .
The major carbon corporations wield so much power and remain so deeply embedded in the U.S. economy that they can call on governments for subsidies to keep them afloat , no matter the economic ( let alone environmental ) irrationality of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Arctic Refuge , like his entire energy policy , has been anchored by attempts to increase such subsidies and so prolong the fossil-fuel era .
The industry giants are also using the current crisis to acquire bankrupt competitors at low prices and consolidate production into a ruling oligopoly .
The survivors could emerge even more powerful and so potentially even more capable of demanding handouts from the public .
Why Fossil Fuels Might Be Defeated Ironically , the Trump administration 's latest initiatives on behalf of fossil fuels also reveal how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investors are increasingly reluctant to fund troubled extraction and infrastructure projects , the industry has enlisted the U.S. government to force them to do so .
The Arctic Refuge , a pristine wilderness area in Alaska where the Trump administration 's OCC and the industry have , absurdly enough , invoked anti-discrimination law ( alleging discrimination against both fossil-fuel producers and Indigenous Alaskans ) to try to compel the banks to invest , is the most obvious case of this .
Their desperation reflects just how effective the resistance to fossil-fuel projects has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. and Canada , climate and Indigenous organizers have successfully raised the level of risk attached to such investments .
The industry is highly vulnerable to delays in both drilling and the construction of the transportation infrastructure necessary to deliver oil and gas .
Delays raise production costs , while creating long-term uncertainty about the competitiveness of fossil fuels .
Green resistance movements have created a credible threat of chronic delays to and interruptions of such projects , leading major lenders to begin shifting from reluctance-to-invest to outright refusal .
The OCC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on its recent finding `` that some of the nation 's largest banks had stopped doing business altogether with one or more major energy industry categories . ''
As Alaskan lawmakers put it grimly , the banks were increasingly `` folding to activist environmental groups ' pressure . ''
Why has that pressure worked ?
By obstructing drilling and the construction of infrastructure ( especially pipelines and power plants ) , the green movement has added to the industry 's operating costs in increasingly bad times , while leaving investors fearing the risks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this way , it 's won victories , even in a moment when the Trump administration was aggressively promoting fossil fuels , when a far-right majority controlled the Supreme Court , and when most congressional Democrats were sitting on their hands .
The movement has applied four mutually reinforcing strategies that , together , have often succeeded in blocking or at least delaying such projects and , in doing so , have rendered them ever less viable .
First , resistance groups mounted disruptive protests at extraction sites and along the routes of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Actions against the Keystone XL and Dakota Access ( DAPL ) pipelines , led by Indigenous communities seeking to protect their lands from devastation , have been the most visible examples of this .
In addition to forcing months of delays in construction , these on-site protests inspired a broader movement against fossil fuels and gave added impetus to demands for regulators , judges , and politicians to intervene .
Second , the movement targeted regulators in an effort to prevent or postpone the issuing of permits for the projects .
Even during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mostly acted as `` rubber stamps '' for new fossil fuel projects .
But the Standing Rock Sioux campaign against DAPL successfully pressured the Army Corps of Engineers to announce a new environmental review of the pipeline , delaying it until Trump took office .
Third , the movement has filed lawsuits based on industry violations of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA ) and other laws .
Such suits often challenged the validity of permits already issued , which slowed down industry operations and provided the movement with an alternative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unresponsive .
Finally , it targeted the `` money pipeline , '' pressuring banks , insurers , and other large institutions to divest from fossil fuels .
Initially , this strategy was largely symbolic , but no longer .
It 's now adding to the financial difficulties of Big Energy .
Shell Oil Company , for instance , recently labeled the divestment movement a `` material risk . ''
In the case of the Arctic Refuge , the movement 's pressure on Wall Street has made big loans harder to obtain and also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurance companies to steer clear of projects there .
This four-pronged strategy has yielded many victories and now poses a credible threat to future fossil-fuel projects .
In July 2020 , for instance , the business media announced a cascade of ominous news affecting four important pipelines : • A federal judge ruled that the DAPL permit was in violation of NEPA and ordered a time-consuming full environmental review .
Though the pipeline had been successfully built in North Dakota despite much resistance , it is now at risk of being permanently closed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuit arguing that a second North Dakota pipeline , Marathon Oil 's Tesoro High Plains line , illegally trespassed on their territory led the Bureau of Indian Affairs to order its closing after 67 years of operation .
• The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ruling by a Montana district court judge that had stopped construction of the Keystone XL pipeline .
• Dominion Energy and Duke Energy cancelled their Atlantic Coast pipeline project `` after years of delays and ballooning costs . ''
In response to that last cancellation , Secretary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obstructionist environmental lobby has successfully killed the Atlantic Coast Pipeline . ''
His attitude reflected a growing exasperation among industry leaders who have recently decried the `` rising tide of protests , litigation , and vandalism '' against pipelines and warned that the movement is reaching a new `` level of intensity '' with `` more opponents '' who are `` better organized . ''
Indeed , the resistance has increased pessimism among industry executives and their investors .
According to Bloomberg News , typically a gauge of Wall Street sentiments , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often concluding that `` the mega-projects of the past are no longer feasible in the face of unprecedented opposition to fossil fuels and the infrastructure that supports them . ''
The July decisions on the two North Dakota pipelines were especially significant since they threatened already operating projects .
As one former pipeline executive put it , this meant that even projects that successfully weathered a storm of protests and secured the necessary permits to operate remained vulnerable and might be shuttered long before repaying their immense debts .
With that prospect , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be incredibly difficult for anybody to invest in any kind of [ fossil-fuel ] infrastructure . ''
Echoing his view , North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum warned that the DAPL ruling might be `` a tipping point , which actually could really cripple production in North Dakota . ''
Even if the industry ultimately wins some of its current battles , it might not be able to keep investors on board .
The prospect that some future judicial decision could imperil their existing investments deprives them of `` certainty from the government , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in March .
This threat is compounded by the prospect that , in the Biden years to come , other parts of the government may finally begin taking action to stop climate destruction , which could leave fossil-fuel assets `` stranded . ''
If the green movement can continue to disrupt the certainty that investing in oil fields and pipelines will return big profits , count on this : capitalists will begin to desert fossil fuels big time .
Billionaire investment strategist Jeremy Grantham predicts a tipping point in the near future .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mounting threats to the fossil-fuel industry `` very slowly '' for a while and then `` all at once . ''
The point of resistance , then , is to increase the delays , closures , and disruptions that make fossil fuels a risky investment , therefore ensuring that the `` all at once '' tipping point arrives before humanity crosses the threshold of irreversible catastrophe .
What does all this mean for the current movement to win a Green New Deal ?
Electing pro-GND candidates has helped place it on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoid the trap of investing all its energy and resources in electoral campaigns and lobbying .
The Democratic Party leadership , including President-elect Biden , has mocked the Green New Deal and committed itself instead to a dangerous `` all of the above '' energy policy that includes plenty of oil , gas , and nuclear power .
Even if Democrats were to win a Senate majority from the two January run-off elections in Georgia , Green New Deal legislation would remain a hard lift at best .
The environmental movement can , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a Green New Deal through the very same strategy that brought it victories during the Obama and Trump eras .
By obstructing fossil-fuel projects at every turn , it can deprive the industry of the Wall Street investments it needs and lead private investors to view renewables , ever cheaper to produce , as a safer option .
The government itself will be forced to invest in renewables in order to meet society 's energy needs and provide jobs to replace those lost when fossil-fuel projects are blocked , as the climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fossil fuels is the shortest and surest path to a renewable energy transition .
When you make the building of more pipelines and gas-powered plants so much harder , you also make the Green New Deal and a livable planet so much more possible .
Richard Lachmann is professor of sociology at the State University of New York , Albany , and author of First-Class Passengers on a Sinking Ship : Elite Politics and the Decline of Great Powers ( Verso , 2020 ) .
Michael Schwartz is distinguished teaching professor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University of New York , Stony Brook .
Kevin Young is associate professor of history at the University of Massachusetts , Amherst .
Schwartz and Young are the co-authors , with Tarun Banerjee , of Levers of Power : How the 1 % Rules and What the 99 % Can Do About It ( Verso , 2020 ) .
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook .
Check out the newest Dispatch Books , John Feffer 's new dystopian novel ( the second in the Splinterlands series ) Frostlands , Beverly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Story , and Tom Engelhardt 's A Nation Unmade by War , as well as Alfred McCoy 's In the Shadows of the American Century : The Rise and Decline of U.S .
Global Power and John Dower 's The Violent American Century : War and Terror Since World War II .

As Donald Trump gave in to the demand that the transition process to the Biden years officially begin, the administration and its fossil-fuel allies doubled down on their efforts to implement destructive environmental policies that President Biden might try to reverse. Those initiatives have included a campaign to jump-start oil drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; the approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of the long-delayed Enbridge Line 3 tar sands pipeline in Minnesota; and a push by utility companies to obtain funding and permits for the construction of 235 gas-fired power plants, each with a 30-year life expectancy.
In response, horrified progressives have sought to pressure the president-elect to appoint officials committed to blocking these and other similar projects. But the strategy of pressuring leading Democrats hasn't worked particularly well for environmentalists in the past and doesn't seem to be working now. Despite the movement's full-court press for a real environmentalist presence in the administration, Biden designated Congressman Cedric Richmond as his "liaison" with that very movement. Richmond voted in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline and, among Democrats in the House, he was the fifth-largest recipient of fossil-fuel cash.
Fortunately, a more promising strategy for defeating new fossil-fuel projects has been quietly bearing fruit, even in the Trump era. Climate and Indigenous organizers have been attacking Big Energy companies and their investors, using economic pressure, boycotts, lawsuits, and disruptive direct-action tactics to impede drilling, interrupt the transportation of oil and gas, and choke off the flow of financing to, and insurance for, such projects. This multipronged strategy has been so surprisingly successful that the companies themselves -- especially their sources of funding -- have begun divesting from fossil-fuel extraction and infrastructure. As our desperately overheated planet continues setting records, understanding the largely unnoticed success of recent resistance movements is crucial if we hope to prevent total ecological collapse.
Why the Fossil-Fuel Industry Is Vulnerable, But the End of Fossil Fuels Isn't Inevitable
The fossil-fuel industry and its champions in Congress recently complained that financial institutions were "discriminating against America's energy sector." Specifically, banks were "folding to activist environmental groups' pressure" by adopting "policies against investing in new oil and gas operations." Trump's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) responded by trying to force Wall Street to fund drilling in the Arctic Refuge and undertake other new fossil-fuel initiatives.
Why have the banks suddenly become so unwilling to invest in a longtime favorite sector of theirs? One reason is that easy-to-access fossil fuels are getting scarcer. In this era of "extreme" energy, companies have found themselves investing striking amounts of Wall Street capital (and wreaking environmental devastation) to find, extract, and transport hydrocarbon deposits from deep oceans, the Arctic, oil sands, and shale. At a time when oil prices were reliably above $80 per barrel, such projects were enormously profitable. But the fracking boom of the Obama years burst that bubble, with oil prices dropping as low as $40 per barrel by 2015 and remaining well under $80 during the first three years of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, renewable energy sources (especially wind) were growing cheaper by the month and siphoning off investment capital, further reducing the demand for carbon-based power.
The global spread of Covid-19 tanked energy demand, turning the drop in oil prices into a nosedive. The pandemic itself, the economic lockdowns, the lack of travel that went with them, and a Saudi-Russian price war drove oil to a calamitous low of $19 per barrel in April 2020. The result was widespread bankruptcies among shale producers and weakening viability among major banks saddled with $300 billion in shaky hydrocarbon loans. To prevent further losses, those banks started to withhold funding for new projects, while oil companies wrote down the value of their reserves, implicitly acknowledging that many of them may never be extracted. A number of experts are now predicting that the "fracking revolution" has entered a period of terminal decline.
This potntially dire situation helps explain the latest Trump initiatives. In order to lock in the next generation of major fossil-fuel projects, the industry's partisans must convince the major oil companies to borrow and invest the many billions of dollars needed to complete them. They must also convince or coerce increasingly reluctant banks to fund the projects and induce insurers to underwrite ventures that are enormously risky.
This is a daunting but not impossible undertaking. The history of capitalism is strewn with the carcasses of major industries that fell into terminal crisis and were overtaken by new competitors. When it came to manufacturing, water power was replaced by electric power, just as fossil-fueled transportation replaced horses. But history is also littered with industries that somehow survived the challenge of apparently superior substitutes. The nuclear power industry, for instance, has survived despite its monumental costs, poor performance, and the environmental catastrophes associated with it. The reason: the U.S. government invested vast resources in it, forced other institutions to do the same, and suppressed political and economic resistance to it.
The same thing could happen with fossil fuels. The major carbon corporations wield so much power and remain so deeply embedded in the U.S. economy that they can call on governments for subsidies to keep them afloat, no matter the economic (let alone environmental) irrationality of continued fossil-fuel production. Trump's gambit in the Arctic Refuge, like his entire energy policy, has been anchored by attempts to increase such subsidies and so prolong the fossil-fuel era. The industry giants are also using the current crisis to acquire bankrupt competitors at low prices and consolidate production into a ruling oligopoly. The survivors could emerge even more powerful and so potentially even more capable of demanding handouts from the public.
Why Fossil Fuels Might Be Defeated
Ironically, the Trump administration's latest initiatives on behalf of fossil fuels also reveal how the industry can be defeated. Because investors are increasingly reluctant to fund troubled extraction and infrastructure projects, the industry has enlisted the U.S. government to force them to do so. The Arctic Refuge, a pristine wilderness area in Alaska where the Trump administration's OCC and the industry have, absurdly enough, invoked anti-discrimination law (alleging discrimination against both fossil-fuel producers and Indigenous Alaskans) to try to compel the banks to invest, is the most obvious case of this.
Their desperation reflects just how effective the resistance to fossil-fuel projects has been in recent years. All across the U.S. and Canada, climate and Indigenous organizers have successfully raised the level of risk attached to such investments. The industry is highly vulnerable to delays in both drilling and the construction of the transportation infrastructure necessary to deliver oil and gas. Delays raise production costs, while creating long-term uncertainty about the competitiveness of fossil fuels. Green resistance movements have created a credible threat of chronic delays to and interruptions of such projects, leading major lenders to begin shifting from reluctance-to-invest to outright refusal.
The OCC's efforts to strong-arm lenders are based on its recent finding "that some of the nation's largest banks had stopped doing business altogether with one or more major energy industry categories." As Alaskan lawmakers put it grimly, the banks were increasingly "folding to activist environmental groups' pressure."
Why has that pressure worked? By obstructing drilling and the construction of infrastructure (especially pipelines and power plants), the green movement has added to the industry's operating costs in increasingly bad times, while leaving investors fearing the risks now associated with those projects. In this way, it's won victories, even in a moment when the Trump administration was aggressively promoting fossil fuels, when a far-right majority controlled the Supreme Court, and when most congressional Democrats were sitting on their hands.
The movement has applied four mutually reinforcing strategies that, together, have often succeeded in blocking or at least delaying such projects and, in doing so, have rendered them ever less viable.
First, resistance groups mounted disruptive protests at extraction sites and along the routes of proposed oil and natural gas pipelines. Actions against the Keystone XL and Dakota Access (DAPL) pipelines, led by Indigenous communities seeking to protect their lands from devastation, have been the most visible examples of this. In addition to forcing months of delays in construction, these on-site protests inspired a broader movement against fossil fuels and gave added impetus to demands for regulators, judges, and politicians to intervene.
Second, the movement targeted regulators in an effort to prevent or postpone the issuing of permits for the projects. Even during the Obama era, federal regulators had mostly acted as "rubber stamps" for new fossil fuel projects. But the Standing Rock Sioux campaign against DAPL successfully pressured the Army Corps of Engineers to announce a new environmental review of the pipeline, delaying it until Trump took office.
Third, the movement has filed lawsuits based on industry violations of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws. Such suits often challenged the validity of permits already issued, which slowed down industry operations and provided the movement with an alternative choke point when regulators and politicians proved unresponsive.
Finally, it targeted the "money pipeline," pressuring banks, insurers, and other large institutions to divest from fossil fuels. Initially, this strategy was largely symbolic, but no longer. It's now adding to the financial difficulties of Big Energy. Shell Oil Company, for instance, recently labeled the divestment movement a "material risk." In the case of the Arctic Refuge, the movement's pressure on Wall Street has made big loans harder to obtain and also led investment firms to put pressure on insurance companies to steer clear of projects there.
This four-pronged strategy has yielded many victories and now poses a credible threat to future fossil-fuel projects. In July 2020, for instance, the business mediaannounced a cascade of ominous news affecting four important pipelines:
A federal judge ruled that the DAPL permit was in violation of NEPA and ordered a time-consuming full environmental review. Though the pipeline had been successfully built in North Dakota despite much resistance, it is now at risk of being permanently closed anyway.
An Indigenous landowners' lawsuit arguing that a second North Dakota pipeline, Marathon Oil's Tesoro High Plains line, illegally trespassed on their territory led the Bureau of Indian Affairs to order its closing after 67 years of operation.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ruling by a Montana district court judge that had stopped construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
Dominion Energy and Duke Energy cancelled their Atlantic Coast pipeline project "after years of delays and ballooning costs."
In response to that last cancellation, Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette complained that "the obstructionist environmental lobby has successfully killed the Atlantic Coast Pipeline." His attitude reflected a growing exasperation among industry leaders who have recently decried the "rising tide of protests, litigation, and vandalism" against pipelines and warned that the movement is reaching a new "level of intensity" with "more opponents" who are "better organized."
Indeed, the resistance has increased pessimism among industry executives and their investors. According to Bloomberg News, typically a gauge of Wall Street sentiments, the core big energy companies are ever more often concluding that "the mega-projects of the past are no longer feasible in the face of unprecedented opposition to fossil fuels and the infrastructure that supports them."
A Tipping Point?
The July decisions on the two North Dakota pipelines were especially significant since they threatened already operating projects. As one former pipeline executive put it, this meant that even projects that successfully weathered a storm of protests and secured the necessary permits to operate remained vulnerable and might be shuttered long before repaying their immense debts. With that prospect, "I think it's going to be incredibly difficult for anybody to invest in any kind of [fossil-fuel] infrastructure." Echoing his view, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum warned that the DAPL ruling might be "a tipping point, which actually could really cripple production in North Dakota."
Even if the industry ultimately wins some of its current battles, it might not be able to keep investors on board. The prospect that some future judicial decision could imperil their existing investments deprives them of "certainty from the government," as one industry lobbying group warned in March. This threat is compounded by the prospect that, in the Biden years to come, other parts of the government may finally begin taking action to stop climate destruction, which could leave fossil-fuel assets "stranded."
If the green movement can continue to disrupt the certainty that investing in oil fields and pipelines will return big profits, count on this: capitalists will begin to desert fossil fuels big time. Billionaire investment strategist Jeremy Grantham predicts a tipping point in the near future. He expects that investors will respond to the mounting threats to the fossil-fuel industry "very slowly" for a while and then "all at once." The point of resistance, then, is to increase the delays, closures, and disruptions that make fossil fuels a risky investment, therefore ensuring that the "all at once" tipping point arrives before humanity crosses the threshold of irreversible catastrophe.
What does all this mean for the current movement to win a Green New Deal? Electing pro-GND candidates has helped place it on the legislative agenda, but the movement must avoid the trap of investing all its energy and resources in electoral campaigns and lobbying. The Democratic Party leadership, including President-elect Biden, has mocked the Green New Deal and committed itself instead to a dangerous "all of the above" energy policy that includes plenty of oil, gas, and nuclear power. Even if Democrats were to win a Senate majority from the two January run-off elections in Georgia, Green New Deal legislation would remain a hard lift at best.
The environmental movement can, however, still move this country closer to a Green New Deal through the very same strategy that brought it victories during the Obama and Trump eras. By obstructing fossil-fuel projects at every turn, it can deprive the industry of the Wall Street investments it needs and lead private investors to view renewables, ever cheaper to produce, as a safer option. The government itself will be forced to invest in renewables in order to meet society's energy needs and provide jobs to replace those lost when fossil-fuel projects are blocked, as the climate movement has long demanded. Direct resistance to fossil fuels is the shortest and surest path to a renewable energy transition. When you make the building of more pipelines and gas-powered plants so much harder, you also make the Green New Deal and a livable planet so much more possible.
Richard Lachmann is professor of sociology at the State University of New York, Albany, and author of First-Class Passengers on a Sinking Ship: Elite Politics and the Decline of Great Powers(Verso, 2020). Michael Schwartz is distinguished teaching professor of sociology (emeritus) at the State University of New York, Stony Brook. Kevin Young is associate professor of history at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Schwartz and Young are the co-authors, with Tarun Banerjee, of Levers of Power: How the 1% Rules and What the 99% Can Do About It (Verso, 2020).
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer's new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.
Copyright 2020 Richard Lachmann, Michael Schwartz, and Kevin Young