Heather Cox Richardson from Letters from an AmericanMon 6/21/202

	June 21, 2021Heather Cox RichardsonJun 22 Lawmakers today are jockeying before tomorrow’s test vote in the Senate on S1, the For the People Act. This is a sweeping bill that protects the right to vote, ends partisan gerrymandering, limits the influence of money in politics, and establishes new ethics rules for presidents and other federal officeholders.Passing election reform is a priority for Democrats, since Republican-dominated legislatures across the country have gerrymandered states to make it almost impossible for Democrats to win majorities and, since President Biden took office, have passed laws suppressing the vote and making it easier for Republican state officials to swing elections to their candidates no matter what voters want.But it is not just Democrats who want our elections to be cleaner and fairer. S1 is so popular across the nation—among voters of both parties—that Republican operatives agreed in January that there was no point in trying to shift public opinion on it. Instead, they said, they would just kill it in Congress. This conversation, explored in The New Yorker by Jane Mayer, happened just after it became clear that Democrats had won a Senate majority and thus Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who had previously been Senate Majority Leader, would no longer be able to stop any legislation Republicans didn’t like.Still, Republican senators can deploy the filibuster, which permits just 41 of the 50 Republican senators to stop the act from passing. It is possible for the Democrats to break a filibuster, but only if they are all willing. Until recently, it seemed they were not. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), a conservative Democrat in a Republican-dominated state, opposed some of the provisions in S1 and was adamant that he would not vote for an election reform bill on partisan lines. He wanted bipartisan support.Last week, Manchin indicated which of the measures in the For the People Act—and in the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act—he will support. In a mixture of the priorities of the leadership of each party, he called for expanding access to voting, an end to partisan gerrymandering, voter ID, automatic registration at motor vehicle offices, making Election Day a holiday, and making it easier for state officials to purge voters from the rolls.Democrats across the ideological spectrum immediately lined up behind Manchin’s compromise. Republican leadership immediately opposed it, across the board. They know that fair voting practices will wreck them. Today, McConnell used martial language when he said he would give the measure “no quarter.”Tomorrow, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) will bring up for a vote not the measure itself, but whether to begin a debate on such a measure. “Tomorrow, the Senate will also take a crucial vote on whether to start debate on major voting rights legislation,” Schumer said today. “I want to say that again—tomorrow the Senate will take a vote on whether to start debate on legislation to protect Americans’ voting rights. It’s not a vote on any particular policy.”Republicans can use the filibuster to stop a debate from going forward. Getting a debate underway will require 60 votes, and there is currently no reason to think any Republicans will agree. This will put them in the untenable spot of voting against talking about voting rights, even while Republicans at the state level are passing legislation restricting voting rights. So the vote to start a debate on the bill will fail but will highlight the hypocrisy of Republican lawmakers.Perhaps more to the point in terms of passing legislation, it will test whether the work the Democrats did over the weekend incorporating Manchin’s requests to the measure have brought him on board.If so, and if he gets frustrated with Republican refusal to compromise at all while the Democrats immediately accepted his watering down of their bill, it is possible he and Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), who has also signaled support for the filibuster in its current form, will be willing to consider altering it. The Senate could, for example, turn it back into its traditional form—a talking filibuster—or carve out voting rights bills as they have carved out financial bills and judicial nominations.There are signs that the Democrats are preparing for an epic battle over this bill. Today White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki indicated that the administration hopes the vote will show that all 50 Senate Democrats are now on board and that they will find a new way forward if the Republicans do not permit a debate.More telling, perhaps, is an eye-popping op-ed published yesterday in the Wall Street Journal by Mike Solon, a former assistant to McConnell, and Bill Greene, a former outreach director for former House Speaker John Boehner; both men are now lobbyists. In order to defend the filibuster, they argue that the measure protects “political nobodies” from having to pay attention to politics. If legislation could pass by a simple majority, Americans would have to get involved. The system, they suggest, is best managed by a minority of senators.“Eliminating the Senate filibuster would end the freedom of America’s political innocents,” they write. “The lives that political nobodies spend playing, praying, fishing, tailgating, reading, hunting, gardening, studying and caring for their children would be spent rallying, canvassing, picketing, lobbying, protesting, texting, posting, parading and, above all, shouting.”The authors suggest misleadingly that the men who framed the Constitution instituted the filibuster: they did not. They set up a Senate in which a simple majority passed legislation. The filibuster, used to require 60 votes to pass any legislation, has been deployed regularly only since about 2008.But that error is minor compared to the astonishing similarity between this op-ed and a speech by South Carolina Senator James Henry Hammond in 1858, when he rose to explain to his colleagues that the American system was set up to make sure lawmakers could retain control no matter what a majority of Americans wanted. Hammond was one of the nation’s leading enslavers and was desperate to make sure his party’s policies could not be overridden by the majority.Voting only enabled people to change the party in charge, he said. “It was not for the people to exercise political power in detail… it was not for them to be annoyed with the cares of government.”Hammond explained that the world is made up of two classes: those who ”do the menial duties… perform the drudgery of life. That is, a class requiring but a low order of intellect and but little skill….. It constitutes the very mud-sill of society and of political government.” On them, he explained, rests “that other class which leads progress, civilization, and refinement.”It was imperative, he said, to retain these distinctions in politics. The South had managed such a thing, while the North, he warned, had not. “Our slaves do not vote. We give them no political power. Yours do vote, and, being the majority, they are the depositaries [sic] of all your political power. If they knew the tremendous secret, that the ballot-box is stronger than ‘an army with banners,’… where would you be? Your society would be reconstructed, your government overthrown, your property, divided, not… with arms in their hands, but by the quiet process of the ballot-box.”—-

Here’s how you and your family can stay safer

by Mike Zimmerman, AARP, November 9, 2020 | 

En Espanol We don’t need more proof of how dangerous the coronavirus is.

We know that more than 237,000 Americans had died of the disease as of early November, and 95 percent of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. have occurred among people who were 50 or older. We know preexisting conditions such as obesity, heart disease, autoimmune diseases and type 2 diabetes make coronavirus infection even riskier. We know COVID-19 can cause blood clotting that can ravage your lungs and inflammation that can damage your heart and organs; a viral attack on your pancreas can even cause “COVID diabetes.” And infections can sometimes linger for months in so-called “long haulers.”

---

For the latest coronavirus news and advice go to AARP.org/coronavirus.

---

Yet we’ve isolated ourselves for more than eight months now, and the psychological toll of COVID is real. A study from early in the pandemic found “moderate” and “severe” depression symptoms had tripled.

Now the holidays are here, and we’re missing our friends and loved ones more than ever. Can we safely celebrate the holidays and the end of a long, lousy year?

“We’re not out of the woods with COVID-19,” says Michael G. Ison, M.D., infectious disease specialist at Northwestern Medicine in Illinois. “The virus is still there. It’s still dangerous.”

To help us cope with the coming holidays, we queried top experts about navigating the season safely and warmly.

1. A relative had COVID-19 several weeks ago. Can he or she still make me sick?

People who have had the virus generally stop spreading it 10 to 14 days after exhibiting symptoms. But the more we learn about the coronavirus, the more twists and turns we discover. For that reason, anyone who has contracted the virus, or thinks he’s been exposed to it, should be cleared by a doctor before seeing anyone, says Sten Vermund, M.D., dean of the Yale School of Public Health.

That said, “those people are largely safe,” Vermund asserts. “ ‘Totally safe’ would be a slight exaggeration, but the functional reality is that a recovered coronavirus patient poses a minimal risk to others.”

2. I tested positive for COVID earlier this year. Does that mean I’m immune now?

Unfortunately, we don’t yet know the answer to that. People who recover from the virus do have some level of acquired immunity, but it’s difficult to know how much or for how long. Research is conflicting: A study of 1,100 COVID patients in the New England Journal of Medicine found that patients had no decline in antibodies four months after diagnosis. But a separate study found antibodies peaking 60 days after diagnosis and declining thereafter. And, of course, there have been a handful of widely reported cases of people contracting the virus more than once.

“When we look at immune responses, we look at how much antibody is in the blood,” Ison says. “With most viruses, that level goes down slowly over time, particularly with older people.” But the coronavirus is a whole new beast. “We’ve only known about this virus for about nine months,” Ison says. “Even for the earliest patients, all we can say is that immunity may last for nine months. Whether it lasts any longer, we can’t know yet.”

The severity of one’s infection may determine subsequent antibody levels and how long they last. One study of COVID-19 patients in China who had zero symptoms found significantly lower antibody levels than in patients with symptoms. Common sense would point to asymptomatic people being more vulnerable to reinfection because of low or no antibodies. But we simply don’t know enough about what antibody level is required to protect people from COVID-19.

3. Is catching the coronavirus linked to how much time we spend together?

The amount of exposure you have to the virus — both in terms of how sick another person is and how much time you spend with him or her — does appear to determine your risk, says Thomas Fekete, M.D., professor of microbiology and immunology at Temple University. That’s why so many health care providers have gotten sick, especially at the start of the pandemic, when they had inadequate personal protective equipment.

While there are no established guidelines, Fekete suggests modeling how you handle indoor spaces on the policies in place at Temple’s medical school: More than 15 minutes of exposure to another person is “meaningful,” while fewer than 15 minutes of exposure is less worrisome. “We’re less concerned if someone rides an elevator with someone for 30 seconds than if he or she shares a small space with someone for an hour,” he says. “Our policy also mandates wearing a mask and eye protection. That said, there are no guarantees.”

And that’s what makes holiday gatherings so problematic. An infected person will throw off more virus when talking than when breathing — and more still when singing Christmas carols or shouting to be heard.

4. We’ve already had a bad outbreak in my town. Have we reached herd immunity?

As the pandemic has progressed, you may have heard about getting the U.S. population to a point where enough people have been exposed to the virus — either by infection or vaccine — that it’s no longer a threat. This “herd immunity” is a real thing — the U.S. all but eradicated measles because an effective vaccine created herd immunity. Just don’t expect this to happen soon with COVID-19.

“Herd immunity requires somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 to 70 percent of the population having immunity,” Ison says. “The epidemiology studies have gone on to tell us that even in the worst areas like New York, it’s in the 20 percent range, and in most areas in the 3 to 10 percent range.”

A COVID-19 vaccine could change that, but again, we’re nowhere near that point. “As we’ve seen with other viruses, if people don’t get the vaccine, we get outbreaks,” he says. “So herd immunity not only takes an effective vaccine, but a willingness to get that vaccine.”

5. If I do host a holiday gathering, are there any rules I should put in place for my family?

Here’s a good one: Nobody gets to come to dinner unless he or she has had a flu shot. The reasons go far beyond the usual in 2020. Flu and COVID-19 symptoms are similar, so if you become ill with the flu, it could necessitate a trip to the doctor or even the hospital, which puts you at additional risk. And yes, it’s possible to get both, either one after the other, or simultaneously, Vermund says. Just imagine getting COVID after your lungs have already been dealing with the flu.

Vermund puts it bluntly: “It is essential for people to get the influenza vaccine. And I mean everybody: children, pregnant women, young adults, middle age, older adults, seniors, everyone.”

6. My whole family is in excellent health. Does COVID-19 really pose a threat to us?

The fact is, researchers cannot predict how sick any one person will get if infected by the coronavirus. Recent research out of Stanford suggests that patients with more severe COVID-19 symptoms tend to have higher levels of certain inflammatory molecules in their blood. This could help experts predict severity in the years to come. But right now?

“None of us are clear [about] what’s going to happen,” Fekete says. Which means even if you’re a “healthy” person, getting COVID-19 is a risk to yourself and everyone else.

“In the best of all worlds, [precautions] would reduce the impact of coronavirus, but also other respiratory viruses. If that’s the outcome, I think people will be relatively OK over the winter months,” Fekete argues. “Having said that, I’m expecting to see significant outbreaks in certain populations, such as nursing homes and adult living facilities, and also in immunosuppressed people.”

---

---

“We’ve had some terrible ageism creeping into politics and medicine,” Vermund says. “There are people who have an attitude, like, ‘Why should I suffer just to protect the elderly?’ And that’s a very unfortunate turn in American society.”

What can you do? Watch out for you and yours, of course, but set a strong example for others you know who may not be as enthusiastic as you are to prevent virus spread.

7. Are our holiday traditions ruined?

After more than six months of distancing and isolation, the pressure to gather for Thanksgiving and other holidays will be massive. But this is just one year, and it would be tragic to get even one family member or friend (or yourself!) sick. Remember: An August wedding in Maine was linked to 178 COVID cases and eight deaths — and none of those who died even attended the event.

“Thanksgiving is one of my favorite holidays, but this year it can’t be done safely in the usual sense,” Ison says. “We won’t just have COVID-19. We’ll have the flu and other respiratory viruses as well. So it has the potential to be a perfect storm, and we can’t let our guard down. We’ll have to get creative with the holidays, which will require more virtual visits.”

The good news: It’s temporary. “We’re not condemning people to a lifetime of this,” Vermund says. “I do have a great deal of optimism for 2021 because we’ve got more than 400 clinical trials of new antiviral drugs, new biologic agents like monoclonal antibodies, and different steroid strategies. We’ve got 10 vaccines now in phase 3 clinical trials, which is absolutely remarkable. And we can avoid circulating the virus. So I’m just trying to remind people that 2020 is not 2021. We probably can be closer to normal by the end of next year.”

 

Opinion by  Max Boot Columnist

Oct. 26, 2020 at 8:54 a.m. CDT

For me, this election is intensely personal. I came to this country in 1976, with my mother and grandmother, as a 7-year-old immigrant from the Soviet Union. My family, like so many before and since, was fleeing poverty and oppression. Because the United States took us in and gave us dignity and prosperity, I have always loved this country. Americanism has been my religion, as it was for two of my heroes, Theodore Roosevelt and John McCain.

As I have grown older, I have developed a more nuanced understanding of the United States and its complex history — sometimes uplifting, sometimes shameful — noble and ignoble strands wound tightly together like a double helix. Historic wrongs have still not been righted — in particular, the poisonous legacy of slavery and segregation — but I thought we were moving in the right direction.

Then came 2016. I was devastated to see a dangerous demagogue rise to power by spewing hatred and promoting division. This was not the America I knew. This was the kind of thing that happened over there — in the old country — not on this “shining city upon a hill.” As our luster dimmed — as democratic norms shattered and body bags piled up — there were times when I lost hope in what Lincoln called “the last best hope of earth.”

How could President Trump be so awful and yet maintain the support of so many? This has been a terrible indictment, to me, of the country I love. But my faith in the United States, while battered, has not vanished. I continue to believe — to hope — to pray — that we are better than this. Aren’t we? We certainly should be better than this.

Americans have won nearly three times as many Nobel Prizes as the next-closest nation. We defeated diseases such as measles and polio, performed the first organ transplant and helped map the genome. We invented the airplane, harnessed the atom, landed on the moon and pioneered the personal computer and the Internet. How can we now turn our backs on science and reason and embrace a president who spouts nonsensical conspiracy theories?

Our Democracy in Peril: A series on the damage Trump has caused — and the danger he would pose in a second term

Racism is, of course, a defining feature of the American experience, but so is fighting for racial justice. America is the land of W.E.B. Du Bois, Rosa Parks, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis and other storied civil rights activists. Let their example inspire us today. How can we reward a president who employs bigotry for political advantage?

From Alexander Hamilton to Elon Musk, the United States was built by those born elsewhere. If the United States weren’t the land of immigrants, most of us wouldn’t be here — Trump included. How can we tolerate the president’s intolerable abuse of immigrants and even the separation of children from their families?

The United States was once notorious for the corruption of Boss Tweed, James Michael Curley and the Pendergast machine, but we have generally held the presidency to a higher standard. Not even Richard M. Nixon committed as many offenses as Trump — and he disclosed his taxes. Jimmy Carter placed his peanut farm in a blind trust, while Trump continues to promote his global business empire, complete with a secret bank account in China. How can we turn a blind eye to Trump’s blatant abuse of office for personal and political gain?

We have seen a peaceful transfer of power for more than two centuries — in peace and war, prosperity and depression. Generations of Americans have sacrificed for our freedom, from Valley Forge to Fallujah. They were not “suckers” and “losers.” They gave the “last full measure of devotion” so that “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Honor their legacy. How can we accept the president’s refusal to honor the outcome of the election and his thuggish demands that his opponents be locked up?

We are the land of the First Amendment and of fabled journalists and truth-tellers, from Thomas Paine to Woodward and Bernstein. How can we have a president who, borrowing a phrase from Joseph Stalin, calls the press “the enemy of the people”?

We have had presidents before who were dishonest and undignified, but nothing like this. Most presidents, following the example of George Washington, strove to elevate the office and inspire the nation. Remember when a big scandal was President Barack Obama wearing a tan suit? Those were the days. How can we overlook the president’s vile name-calling, vituperation and lies?

The United States has made common cause with illiberal regimes before (such as the Soviet Union during World War II), but no president has ever denigrated our fellow democracies and glorified dictators as Trump has done. From Woodrow Wilson vowing to make “the world safe for democracy” to Ronald Reagan demanding “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” U.S. presidents used to champion the cause of freedom. How can we reelect a president who kowtows to our enemies and treats our allies with contempt?

Please, my fellow Americans, I beg of you: Do not let the Trump presidency define the United States for future generations. Electing Trump once can be written off as an aberration; electing him twice will leave an indelible stain on our history. Trump will see reelection as an endorsement of his first-term misconduct and a license for even greater abuses to come. The United States will cease to inspire hope — as it did for a young boy who came here in 1976 — and instead instill pity and fear. We cannot, we must not, turn our backs on the “better angels of our nature” in favor of hatred and division, irrationality and resentment.

We are better than this. Aren’t we?

I’m cured of the Covid. I’m totally immune. Who you gonna believe, me or some scientific test results? Regeneron is great. Every senior’s gonna get some and Mexico’s gonna pay for it!-Donald Trump

Trump’s evil has shifted into hyperdrive. Pushing an unproven drug he’s financially invested in to seniors. Calling for the unlawful arrest of Joe Biden. Expect a catastrophe soon (his doing) so he can declare martial law and cancel the election. Till then…see you Sat night

Ted Cruz, Hellbound Class of 2020

Mitch McConnell, Hellbound Class of 2020