The Big Lie ?

The donkey told the tiger, “The grass is blue.” The tiger replied, “No, the grass is green .”The discussion became heated, and the two decided to submit the issue to arbitration, so they approached the lion.

As they approached the lion on his throne, the donkey started screaming: ′′Your Highness, isn’t it true that the grass is blue?” The lion replied: “If you believe it is true, the grass is blue.” The donkey rushed forward and continued: ′′The tiger disagrees with me, contradicts me and annoys me. Please punish him.

“The king then declared: ′′The tiger will be punished with 3 days of silence.” The donkey jumped with joy and went on his way, content and repeating ′′The grass is blue, the grass is blue…”

The tiger asked the lion, “Your Majesty, why have you punished me, after all, the grass is green?” The lion replied, ′′You’ve known and seen the grass is green. “The tiger asked, ′′So why do you punish me?”

The lion replied, “That has nothing to do with the question of whether the grass is blue or green. The punishment is because it is degrading for a brave, intelligent creature like you to waste time arguing with an ass, and on top of that, you came and bothered me with that question just to validate something you already knew was true! “

The biggest waste of time is arguing with the fool and fanatic who doesn’t care about truth or reality, but only the victory of his beliefs and illusions. Never waste time on discussions that make no sense. There are people who, for all the evidence presented to them, do not have the ability to understand. Others who are blinded by ego, hatred and resentment, and the only thing that they want is to be right even if they aren’t.

When IGNORANCE SCREAMS, intelligence moves on.

Yahoo! News

Jan. 6 Capitol riot: One year later, key numbers to know

Dylan Stableford, Caitlin Dickson, Christopher Wilson

January 4, 2022

It’s been exactly 363 days since Jan. 6, 2021, when a violent mob of supporters of then-President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attack that left multiple people dead and more than 140 officers injured. More than 700 people have been charged by the Justice Department.

A bipartisan select committee probing the insurrection — established after Republicans in Congress voted against a 9/11-style commission — has issued more than 50 subpoenas since its formation in June.

Below are some notable numbers related to the attack and its aftermath.

725+

The number of people charged in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, according to the FBI

80

The age (in years) of the oldest person, an Army veteran from West Chester, Pa., arrested in connection with the attack

18

The age (in years) of the youngest person, a teenager from Milton, Ga., charged in connection with the attack

46

The number of states that the people who were arrested came from

163

The number of Capitol rioters who have entered guilty pleas in connection to the riot, according to NPR

140+

The number of police officers who were injured during the riot, according to officials from the U.S. Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police departments

4

The number of Capitol Police officers who committed suicide following the attack

6

The approximate number of hours Congress was delayed in certifying Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump in the Electoral College vote; the breach of the Capitol began shortly after 2 p.m. ET, and lawmakers returned to certify the results around 8 p.m. ET

147

The number of Republicans who voted against certifying the election after the attack

25

The number of tweets and retweets posted to Trump’s Twitter feed on Jan. 6, including this one at 6:01 p.m. ET: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”

1.5 million

The estimated cost (in dollars) of the damage to the Capitol Building on Jan. 6, according to the Architect of the Capitol

100+

The number of people, businesses or entities who have received subpoenas from the select committee investigating the attack, according to CNN

275+

The number of witnesses that the Jan. 6 committee has heard from so far in its investigation of the attack, according to Reuters

35,000

The number of pages of records obtained by the select committee so far, including texts, emails and phone records from people close to Trump

2

The number of Republicans — Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois — on the nine-member committee; Cheney is a top target for Trump and his allies in this year’s Republican primary, while Kinzinger has announced he’s retiring from Congress at the end of his term

63

The number of months Robert Palmer was sentenced to prison — the longest sentence handed down so far; Palmer, a 54-year-old Florida resident, pleaded guilty to assaulting law enforcement officers with a dangerous weapon after hurling a fire extinguisher, plank and pole at them

75

The percentage of Trump voters now convinced the election was “rigged and stolen” from him, according to the most recent Yahoo News/YouGov poll

54

The percentage of Trump voters who view the attack on the Capitol as “unjustified,” according to the same Yahoo News/YouGov poll

27

The percentage of registered U.S. voters who think the next election will be “free and fair,” says the poll

84

The percentage of American adults who are worried about the future of democracy, according to the poll

60

According to the poll, the percentage of U.S. adults who believe an attack like the one on Jan. 6 could happen again

The Conversation

‘Don’t Look Up’: Hollywood’s primer on climate denial illustrates 5 myths that fuel rejection of science

Barbara K. Hofer, Professor of Psychology Emerita, Middlebury and Gale Sinatra, Professor of Education and Psychology, University of Southern California January 5, 2022

Every disaster movie seems to open with a scientist being ignored. “Don’t Look Up” is no exception – in fact, people ignoring or flat out denying scientific evidence is the point.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence play astronomers who make a literally Earth-shattering discovery and then try to persuade the president to take action to save humanity. It’s a satire that explores how individuals, scientists, the media and politicians respond when faced with scientific facts that are uncomfortable, threatening and inconvenient.

The movie is an allegory for climate change, showing how those with the power to do something about global warming willfully avoid taking action and how those with vested interests can mislead the public. But it also reflects science denial more broadly, including what the world has been seeing with COVID-19.https://www.youtube.com/embed/RbIxYm3mKzI?wmode=transparent&start=0

The most important difference between the film’s premise and humanity’s actual looming crisis is that while individuals may be powerless against a comet, everyone can act decisively to stop fueling climate change.

Knowing the myths that feed science denial can help.

As research psychologists and the authors of “Science Denial: Why It Happens and What to Do About It”, we recognize these aspects of science denial all too well.

Myth #1: We can’t act unless the science is 100% certain

The first question President Orlean (Meryl Streep) asks the scientists after they explain that a comet is on a collision course with Earth is, “So how certain is this?” Learning that the certitude is 99.78%, the president’s chief of staff (Jonah Hill) responds with relief: “Oh great, so it’s not 100%!” Government scientist Teddy Oglethorpe (Rob Morgan) replies, “Scientists never like to say 100%.”

This reluctance to claim 100% certainty is a strength of science. Even when the evidence points clearly in one direction, scientists keep exploring to learn more. At the same time, they recognize overwhelming evidence and act on it. The evidence is overwhelming that Earth’s climate is changing in dangerous ways because of human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, and it has been overwhelming for many years.

When politicians take a “let’s wait and see” attitude toward climate change (or “sit tight and assess,” as the movie puts it), suggesting they need more evidence before taking any action, it’s often a form of science denial.

Myth #2: Disturbing realities as described by scientists are too difficult for the public to accept

The title phrase, “Don’t Look Up,” portrays this psychological assumption and how some politicians conveniently use it as an excuse for inaction while promoting their own interests.

Anxiety is a growing and understandable psychological response to climate change. Research shows there are strategies people can use to effectively cope with climate anxiety, such as becoming better informed and talking about the problem with others. This gives individuals a way to manage anxiety while at the same time taking actions to lower the risks.https://www.youtube.com/embed/2bsm45CTCa0?wmode=transparent&start=0

A 2021 international study found that 80% of individuals are indeed willing to make changes in how they live and work to help reduce the effects of climate change.

Myth #3: Technology will save us, so we don’t have to act

Often, individuals want to believe in an outcome they prefer, rather than confront reality known to be true, a response that psychologists call motivated reasoning.

For example, belief that a single technological solution, such as carbon capture, will fix the climate crisis without the need for change in policies, lifestyles and practices may be more grounded in hope than reality. Technology can help reduce our impact on the climate; however, research suggests advances are unlikely to come quickly enough.

Hoping for such solutions diverts attention from significant changes needed in the way we work, live and play, and is a form of science denial.

Myth #4: The economy is more important than anything, including impending crises predicted by science

Taking action to slow climate change will be expensive, but not acting has extraordinary costs – in lives lost as well as property.

Consider the costs of recent Western wildfires. Boulder County, Colorado, lost nearly 1,000 homes to a fire on Dec. 30, 2021, after a hot, dry summer and fall and little recent rain or snow. A study of California’s fires in 2018 – another hot, dry year – when the town of Paradise burned, estimated the damage, including health costs and economic disruption, at about $148.5 billion.

When people say we can’t take action because action is expensive, they are in denial of the cost of inaction.

Myth #5: Our actions should always align with our social identity group

In a politically polarized society, individuals may feel pressured to make decisions based on what their social group believes. In the case of beliefs about science, this can have dire consequences – as the world has seen with the COVID-19 pandemic. In the U.S. alone, more than 825,000 people with COVID-19 have died while powerful identity groups actively discourage people from getting vaccines or taking other precautions that could protect them.

Viruses are oblivious to political affiliation, and so is the changing climate. Rising global temperatures, worsening storms and sea level rise will affect everyone in harm’s way, regardless of the person’s social group.

How to combat science denial – and climate change

A comet headed for Earth might leave little for individuals to do, but this is not the case with climate change. People can change their own practices to reduce carbon emissions and, importantly, pressure leaders in government, business and industry to take actions, such as reducing fossil fuel use, converting to cleaner energy and changing agricultural practices to reduce emissions.

In our book, we discuss steps that individuals, educators, science communicators and policymakers can take to confront the science denial that prevents moving forward on this looming issue. For example:

• Individuals can check their own motivations and beliefs about climate change and remain open minded to scientific evidence.
• Educators can teach students how to source scientific information and evaluate it.
• Science communicators can explain not just what scientists know but how they know it.
• Policymakers can make decisions based on scientific evidence.

As scholars who work to help people make sound decisions about complex problems, we encourage people to consume news and science information from sources outside their own identity group. Break out of your social bubble and listen to and talk with others. Look up.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Gale Sinatra, University of Southern California and Barbara K. Hofer, Middlebury.

Read more:

• IPCC climate report: Profound changes are underway in Earth’s oceans and ice – a lead author explains what the warnings mean
• Humans are hardwired to dismiss facts that don’t fit their worldview

Gale Sinatra has received funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada, and Mattel Children’s Foundation.

Barbara K. Hofer has received research funding from the National Science Foundation and Vermont EPSCOR.

New York Times

Election Falsehoods Surged on Podcasts Before Capitol Riots, Researchers Find

Stuart A. Thompson January 5, 2022

Weeks before the 2020 presidential election, conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck outlined his prediction for how Election Day would unfold: President Donald Trump would be winning that night, but his lead would erode as dubious mail-in ballots arrived, giving Joe Biden an unlikely edge.

“No one will believe the outcome because they’ve changed the way we’re electing a president this time,” he said.

None of the predictions of widespread voter fraud came true. But podcasters frequently advanced the false belief that the election was illegitimate, first as a trickle before the election and then as a tsunami in the weeks leading up to the violent attack at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, according to new research.

Researchers at the Brookings Institution reviewed transcripts of nearly 1,500 episodes from 20 of the most popular political podcasts. Among episodes released between the election and the Jan. 6 riot, about half contained election misinformation, according to the analysis.

In some weeks, 60% of episodes mentioned the election fraud conspiracy theories tracked by Brookings. Those included false claims that software glitches interfered with the count, that fake ballots were used, and that voting machines run by Dominion Voting Systems were rigged to help Democrats. Those kinds of theories gained currency in Republican circles and would later be leveraged to justify additional election audits across the country.

The new research underscores the extent to which podcasts have spread misinformation using platforms operated by Apple, Google, Spotify and others, often with little content moderation. While social media companies have been widely criticized for their role in spreading misinformation about the election and COVID-19 vaccines, they have cracked down on both in the last year. Podcasts and the companies distributing them have been spared similar scrutiny, researchers say, in large part because podcasts are harder to analyze and review.

“People just have no sense of how bad this problem is on podcasts,” said Valerie Wirtschafter, a senior data analyst at Brookings who co-wrote the report with Chris Meserole, a director of research at Brookings.

Wirtschafter downloaded and transcribed more than 30,000 podcast episodes deemed “talk shows,” meaning they offered analysis and commentary rather than strictly news updates. Focusing on 1,490 episodes around the election from 20 popular shows, she created a dictionary of terms about election fraud. After transcribing the podcasts, a team of researchers searched for the keywords and manually checked each mention to determine if the speaker was supporting or denouncing the claims.

In the months leading up to the election, conservative podcasters focused mostly on the fear that mail-in ballots could lead to fraud, the analysis showed.

At the time, political analysts were busy warning of a “red mirage”: an early lead by Trump that could erode because mail-in ballots, which tend to get counted later, were expected to come from Democratic-leaning districts. As ballots were counted, that is precisely what happened. But podcasters used the changing fortunes to raise doubts about the election’s integrity.

Election misinformation shot upward, with about 52% of episodes containing misinformation in the weeks after the election, up from about 6% of episodes before the election.

The biggest offender in Brookings’ analysis was Steve Bannon, Trump’s former adviser. His podcast, “Bannon’s War Room,” was flagged 115 times for episodes using voter fraud terms included in Brookings’ analysis between the election and Jan. 6.

“You know why they’re going to steal this election?” Bannon asked on Nov. 3. “Because they don’t think you’re going to do anything about it.”

As the Jan. 6 protest drew closer, his podcast pushed harder on those claims, including the false belief that poll workers handed out markers that would disqualify ballots.

“Now we’re on, as they say, the point of attack,” Bannon said the day before the protest. “The point of attack tomorrow. It’s going to kick off. It’s going to be very dramatic.”

Bannon’s show was removed from Spotify in November 2020 after he discussed beheading federal officials, but it remains available on Apple and Google.

When reached for comment on Monday, Bannon said that Biden was “an illegitimate occupant of the White House” and referenced investigations into the election that show they “are decertifying his electors.” Many legal experts have argued there is no way to decertify the election.

Sean Hannity, the Fox News anchor, also ranked highly in the Brookings data. His podcast and radio program, “The Sean Hannity Show,” is now the most popular radio talk show in America, reaching upward of 15 million radio listeners, according to Talk Media.

“Underage people voting, people that moved voting, people that never re-registered voting, dead people voting — we have it all chronicled,” Hannity said during one episode.

Claims about voter fraud came not just from Hannity but also his guests, including pollster John McLaughlin, who shared a private exchange he had with Trump.

In the exchange, according to McLaughlin’s on-air account, Trump said that the election was stolen.

“Yeah,” McLaughlin said to the president. “I said it yesterday on Hannity radio.”

“Keep saying it,” Trump replied.

McLaughlin went on to say during the podcast: “This election, easily, was stolen and these drop boxes and the Dominion Systems — their voting system — are definitely the culprits.”

Claims about Dominion Voting Systems were debunked and internal Republican memos showed officials in Trump’s reelection campaign knew the claims were false. Dominion later filed a number of lawsuits against people and media companies who pushed the conspiracies.

Representatives for Hannity, McLaughlin and Beck did not comment when reached about the findings.

Apple’s podcast guidelines say the company does not allow podcasts that “may lead to harmful or dangerous outcomes.” Apple declined to comment.

Spotify did not immediately comment on the research.

The lack of moderation on podcast apps is particularly complicated for Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube. The video streaming site cracked down on videos about election fraud, the conspiracy theory QAnon, and vaccine misinformation, prompting some podcast episodes hosted there to be removed. But the same episodes remained accessible on Google’s Podcasts app. Bannon’s show was removed from YouTube shortly after Jan. 6, for instance, but the podcast remains available on Google’s Podcasts app.

Google has argued that its Podcasts app more closely resembles a search engine than a publishing service because no audio is hosted by the company. A Google spokesman, Farshad Shadloo, said the app simply “crawls and indexes audio content” hosted elsewhere and that they have “policies against recommending podcasts that contain harmful misinformation, including misinformation about the 2020 U.S. elections.”

Business Insider

‘Do you realize you are describing a coup?’: MSNBC host challenges Trump aide after he described plans to overturn the 2020 election

Sinéad Baker January 5, 2022

• On MSNBC, Peter Navarro described Trump allies’ plans to decertify the 2020 election results.
• He detailed plans to challenge the results in battleground states.
• The host Ari Melber shot back, asking, “Do you realize you are describing a coup?”

The MSNBC host Ari Melber on Tuesday challenged Peter Navarro, a former Trump White House economic advisor, over his description of plans to challenge the 2020 presidential election result, saying Navarro was actually “describing a coup.”

Navarro has promoted former President Donald Trump’s baseless claims that President Joe Biden, who has been in office for nearly a year, did not actually win the 2020 election.

On “The Beat,” Melber asked Navarro about Trump allies’ plans to challenge Biden’s win.

Navarro said the plan was to use over 100 US representatives and senators to “challenge the results of the election in the six battleground states,” including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Nevada.

“And basically these were the places where we believed that if the votes were sent back to those battleground states and looked at again that there would be enough concern amongst the legislatures that most or all of those states would decertify the election,” Navarro said.

He continued: “That would throw the election to the House of Representatives. And I would say to you here, Ari, that all of this, again, was in the lanes legally. It was prescribed by the Constitution. There is a provision to go, rather than through the Electoral College, to the House of Representatives.”

He said this process started when lawmakers began to challenge Arizona’s results on January 6, 2021, and he criticized the media.

Melber shot back: “You just described this plan as a way to take an election where the outcome was established by independent secretaries of state, by the voters of those states, and legal remedies had been exhausted with the Supreme Court never even taking, let alone siding with, any of the claims that you just referred to. So legally, they went nowhere.”

Melber then described the plan Navarro had outlined. “Do you realize you are describing a coup?” he said.

Navarro responded: “No. I totally reject many of your premises there.”

IndyStar – Indianapolis Star

Jan. 6 attack posed loyalty test for Indiana Rep. Greg Pence

Brian Slodysko – January 4, 2022

WASHINGTON — Greg Pence watched the Jan. 6 insurrection unfold from an extraordinary perch.

As chants of “Hang Mike Pence” echoed in the Capitol, the Republican congressman from Indiana and his better-known brother were whisked away from the Senate by the Secret Service shortly before a mob of Donald Trump supporters burst in, intent on stopping the vice president from certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s win.

Their dramatic escape, caught on security cameras, came minutes after Trump excoriated Mike Pence on Twitter for lacking the “courage” to use his ceremonial post presiding over the certification of the 2020 election to overturn its outcome.

More: Rep. Greg Pence votes against commission into ‘Hang Mike Pence’ US Capitol insurrection

“My brother was being asked to do what we don’t do in this country,” Greg Pence recounted at a Republican fundraising dinner in his district last July, one of the rare instances he has spoken publicly about the attack. He later added, “I couldn’t be prouder.”

At the beating heart of the insurrection lies Trump’s attempt to pressure his vice president to take the unprecedented step of overturning the election. And few had a better vantage point on the day of the attack than Greg Pence, who hunkered down in a secure area with his younger brother while the vice president worked the phone, pleading for help to clear rioters from the building.

That makes Greg Pence a tantalizing prospective witness for the House Jan. 6 committee, which is investigating the origins of the insurrection that Trump fomented when he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol and “fight like hell.”

Pence has largely declined to discuss what transpired while he was with his brother that day, other than praising his brother as a hero for standing up to Trump.

Capitol riot: Here’s the latest on 9 people with Indiana ties charged

His silence serves as powerful evidence of the grip that Trump still holds on his party, which has led many Republicans to dispute the seriousness of the attack and instead perpetuate the lie that Trump was wrongly denied a second term.

Pence declined last month to speak with The Associated Press at the Capitol. A spokesperson did not respond to multiple inquiries seeking comment.

First elected to Congress in 2018, 65-year-old Greg Pence represents a deeply Republican and largely rural district that his brother held for 12 years before he was elected Indiana governor and eventually selected by Trump to become vice president. Unlike his brother, who from a young age was fixated on a career in politics, Greg Pence was always an unlikely congressman.

After graduating from Loyola University in Chicago, he joined the Marines and later fell into a series of petroleum industry jobs. He eventually served as president of Kiel Bros., a Midwest gas station empire his father helped build, a post he resigned from in 2004 after the company filed for bankruptcy and saddled the state of Indiana with more than $21 million in unpaid environmental cleanup costs, a 2018 Associated Press investigation found.

Pence turned his focus in 2006 to operating antique malls he purchased with his wife, Denise, a business now worth between $5 million and $25 million, according to his congressional financial disclosure.

When Mike Pence’s former congressional seat opened up in 2018, his brother ran a stealthy campaign. Granting few interviews and ducking debates, he coasted to victory.

“I looked into the mirror and said, ‘If not me, who?’” Greg Pence told his hometown newspaper, The Columbus Republic, in a rare interview during the campaign.

But he also expressed deep ambivalence about the job, as well as a lack of conviction that would likely have doomed other candidates.

“What would be my positions, what would be my focus?” he said in a September 2017 interview with the Washington Examiner, a conservative publication, before formally launching his campaign. “I really haven’t dug into or formed positions on anything yet.”

Since then, Pence has had a muted presence in Congress, where he serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Yet during the Trump administration, he enjoyed rarefied privileges, riding with the president on Air Force One for campaign and administration events where the president name-checked him.

One area in which he has excelled is fundraising, raising far more money than the average first-term member of Congress.

Pence also has enjoyed the trappings of political life, spending over $49,000 at Trump-owned properties, while paying Trump’s pollster $137,000 during his 2018 race when there was little doubt he would win, campaign finance disclosures show.

Pence and his family also have collected money from his campaign account, including $18,000 in rent paid to the company he runs with his wife, and $35,000 paid to his daughter Nicole, a former TV reporter, who advised his 2018 campaign. He has also collected $57,000 in reimbursements for travel and meals, records show.

For months it was unclear whether the committee would even seek interviews with members of Congress connected to the insurrection, which was viewed as a provocative step. But in late December, the committee announced it wanted to interview Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, a staunch Trump ally, as well as Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, who leads the hard-line House Freedom Caucus.

So far, Democrats who serve on the committee have been tight-lipped about whether Greg Pence could be called for an interview or asked to submit documents.

“I’m not going to talk about any individual being called,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar, a California Democrat on the committee, when asked whether an interview with Pence would be sought.

Pence has repeatedly voted against attempts to shed light on the insurrection, or hold those who urged it on accountable. He voted twice against forming a committee to investigate the origins of the attack, calling it “bass-ackwards.” He also voted against impeaching Trump.

But perhaps the most significant vote was in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

Hours after emerging from a secure location, Mike Pence gaveled the joint session of Congress back in and presided over the certification of the election, despite Trump’s demands.

Greg Pence, meanwhile, joined scores of other Republicans who sided with Trump and cast a vote rejecting the outcome in Pennsylvania, the state that clinched the election for Biden.

Associated Press

Schumer: Senate to vote on filibuster change on voting bill

Lisa Mascaro, January 3, 2022

WASHINGTON (AP) — Days before the anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced the Senate will vote soon on easing filibuster rules in an effort to advance stalled voting legislation that Democrats say is needed to protect America’s democracy.

In a letter Monday to colleagues, Schumer, D-N.Y., said the Senate “must evolve” and will “debate and consider” the rule changes by Jan. 17, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, as the Democrats seek to overcome Republican opposition to their elections law package.

“Let me be clear: January 6th was a symptom of a broader illness — an effort to delegitimize our election process,” Schumer wrote, “and the Senate must advance systemic democracy reforms to repair our republic or else the events of that day will not be an aberration — they will be the new norm.”

The election and voting rights package has been stalled in the evenly split 50-50 Senate, blocked by a Republican-led filibuster with Democrats unable to mount the 60 votes needed to advance it toward passage.

So far Democrats have been unable to agree among themselves over potential changes to the Senate rules to reduce the 60-vote hurdle, despite months of private negotiations.

Two holdout Democrats, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have tried to warn their party off changes to the Senate rules, arguing that if and when Republicans take majority control of the chamber they can then use the lower voting threshold to advance bills Democrats strongly oppose.

President Joe Biden has waded only cautiously into the debate — a former longtime senator who largely stands by existing rules but is also under enormous political pressure to break the logjam on the voting legislation.

Voting rights advocates warn that Republican-led states are passing restrictive legislation and trying to install election officials loyal to the former President, Donald Trump, in ways that could subvert future elections.

Trump urged his followers last Jan. 6 to “fight like hell” for his presidency, and a mob stormed the Capitol trying to stop Congress from certifying the state election tallies for Biden. It was the worst domestic attack on a seat of government in U.S. history.

How the Senate filibuster rules would be changed remains under discussion.

It seems certain that a full-scale end of the filibuster is out of reach for Democrats. Changing the rules would need all 50 votes, and Manchin and Sinema have made it clear they are unwilling to go that far.

Senators are wary of a sweeping overhaul after seeing the fallout that came from Democrats ending the filibuster for some judicial and executive branch nominees. Once Republicans took power, Sen. Mitch McConnell, the GOP leader, did away with the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations — ushering three Trump-picked conservative justices to the high court.

But despite their reluctance on major filibuster changes, Manchin and Sinema both support the election legislation. In fact, Manchin helped craft the latest package in an unsuccessful effort to win Republican support. Now the two Democrats’ colleagues are working on ways to change the filibuster so at least this legislation could pass.

Private talks with senators have been underway for weeks and continued during the holiday break.

Ideas include forcing senators to hold the floor, old-fashioned style, rather than simply raise their filibuster objections — a scene that would have echoes of the 1950s and 1960s when Southern segregationists filibustered civil rights legislation.

Other ideas are also being considered, and some Democrats have noted that Sinema has mentioned she is open to hearing the arguments as part of a full debate.

Republicans are so worried Democrats will end the filibuster that McConnell has taken other actions to try to keep Manchin and Sinema close so they don’t join the rest of their party in making any drastic changes.

One Republican, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, argued on Monday that ending the filibuster would turn the Senate into a “Lord of the Flies”-style institution where majority rules, no matter what.

“It is absurd and dangerous to the institution itself,” said Lee in a statement. He said Schumer and his “disastrous plan” must be stopped.

Daily Beast

Is the Answer to Dementia Actually in the Air?

Neel V. Patel January 3, 2022

A growing body of evidence over the last few years has demonstrated that air pollution is a significant risk factor for developing dementia in old age. It shouldn’t be much of a shock. “When sensitive people breathe in polluted air from outdoors, very small particles can penetrate the lungs and get into the circulation system,” Jiu-Chiuan Chen, a neuroscientist at the University of Southern California, told The Daily Beast. “These ‘toxic’ responses can make the blood-brain barrier leaky and cause damage to the brain.” It’s not all that different from how other risk factors like smoking can negatively impact human health, leaving it more vulnerable to degenerative conditions like dementia.

The big question scientists have had in the last few years was whether the impact of air pollution on dementia risk was permanent—or whether this was something that could be reversed. New findings published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences bring good news: Improved air quality over several years is associated with a reduced risk of dementia in elderly women.

The findings bolster suspicions that external pollutants can contribute to accelerated aging in the brain (which is effectively what dementia is). But more critically, they also show that this aging can be slowed down if exposure to those pollutants decreases.

We Just Got a Lot Closer to Finding a Cure for Alzheimer’s

Led by Chen and others from USC, a group of researchers assessed the yearly physical and cognitive health of 2,239 women in the U.S. aged 74 to 92, from 2008 to 2018. (Chen and her colleagues focused on women since they are disproportionately affected by neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s, which can lead to dementia). Those women were geographically spread out over the country, and all were dementia-free from at least 2008 to 2012. The researchers compared those assessments with yearly average concentrations of outdoor pollution from 1998 and 2012 to determine in what locations air quality was trending to healthier levels. The study focused on measurements for fine particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide—two very common pollutants resulting from traffic exhaust.

Over those 10 years, 398 women were diagnosed with dementia. But the researchers found that locations with larger improvements in air quality showed a smaller incidence in dementia diagnoses among the women who took part in the study. While the reduction in risk varies with other factors, Chen explained that lowering air pollution exposure to roughly 15 percent below the EPA’s current standard threshold led to a 20 percent reduction in dementia risk.

Air Pollution Can Be as Harmful to Your Lungs as Smoking Cigarettes: Study

Moreover, the link between lower dementia risk and better air quality did not differ significantly by age, education, geography, or cardiovascular risk factors, suggesting that air pollution actually plays a bigger role in dementia than previously thought.

The study is far from perfect. The findings would probably translate to older men, but we can’t be certain yet without actual data to confirm it. Moreover, some women may have been exposed to much different levels of air pollution in their everyday lives than what the general air quality of their surroundings suggests. Other factors like green spaces may have affected air quality at the local level.

But there’s little reason to doubt the overall takeaway: There’s no disentangling human health from environmental health.

The Guardian

US could be under rightwing dictator by 2030, Canadian professor warns

Richard Luscombe – January 3, 2022

The US could be under a rightwing dictatorship by 2030, a Canadian political science professor has warned, urging his country to protect itself against the “collapse of American democracy”.

Related: America is now in fascism’s legal phase | Jason Stanley

“We mustn’t dismiss these possibilities just because they seem ludicrous or too horrible to imagine,” Thomas Homer-Dixon, founding director of the Cascade Institute at Royal Roads University in British Columbia, wrote in the Globe and Mail.

“In 2014, the suggestion that Donald Trump would become president would also have struck nearly everyone as absurd. But today we live in a world where the absurd regularly becomes real and the horrible commonplace.”

Homer-Dixon’s message was blunt: “By 2025, American democracy could collapse, causing extreme domestic political instability, including widespread civil violence. By 2030, if not sooner, the country could be governed by a rightwing dictatorship.”

The author cited eventualities centered on a Trump return to the White House in 2024, possibly including Republican-held state legislatures refusing to accept a Democratic win.

Trump, he warned, “will have only two objectives, vindication and vengeance” of the lie that his 2020 defeat by Joe Biden was the result of electoral fraud.

A “scholar of violent conflict” for more than four decades, Homer-Dixon said Canada must take heed of the “unfolding crisis”.

“A terrible storm is coming from the south, and Canada is woefully unprepared. Over the past year we’ve turned our attention inward, distracted by the challenges of Covid-19, reconciliation and the accelerating effects of climate change.

“But now we must focus on the urgent problem of what to do about the likely unraveling of democracy in the United States. We need to start by fully recognising the magnitude of the danger. If Mr Trump is re-elected, even under the more optimistic scenarios the economic and political risks to our country will be innumerable.”

Homer-Dixon said he even saw a scenario in which a new Trump administration, having effectively nullified internal opposition, deliberately damaged its northern neighbor.

“Under the less-optimistic scenarios, the risks to our country in their cumulative effect could easily be existential, far greater than any in our federation’s history. What happens, for instance, if high-profile political refugees fleeing persecution arrive in our country and the US regime demands them back. Do we comply?”

Related: One in three Americans say violence against government justified – poll

Trump, he said, “and a host of acolytes and wannabes such as Fox [News]’s Tucker Carlson and Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Greene”, had transformed the Republican party “into a near-fascist personality cult that’s a perfect instrument for wrecking democracy”.

Worse, he said, Trump “may be just a warm-up act”.

“Returning to office, he’ll be the wrecking ball that demolishes democracy but the process will produce a political and social shambles,” Homer-Dixon said.

“Still, through targeted harassment and dismissal, he’ll be able to thin the ranks of his movement’s opponents within the state, the bureaucrats, officials and technocrats who oversee the non-partisan functioning of core institutions and abide by the rule of law.

“Then the stage will be set for a more managerially competent ruler, after Mr Trump, to bring order to the chaos he’s created.”

Eating Well

5 Things to Do in 2022 for Better Heart Health, According to the American Heart Association

Leah Goggins December 27, 2021

After a few weeks of enjoying rich meals and seasonal sweets, the new year marks a fresh start and for many, that means making some healthy changes. Whether you’re looking for a little post-holiday reset or some tips to stick to for years to come, you might appreciate some guidance on how, exactly, you can make changes that are easy to stick to. Luckily for those looking to improve their heart health, the American Heart Association (AHA) just shared a roundup of easy-to-achieve goals and resolutions that will help you take care of your ticker in the new year.

“The most important thing is to set realistic expectations and start with small changes that you can amp up over time,” said American Heart Association volunteer cardiologist John A. Osborne, M.D, Ph.D., in a press release. “And if you get off track, don’t be discouraged or give up. Maintaining a healthy lifestyle takes time, so be kind to yourself and realize that making a new, healthy start doesn’t always need to coincide with January 1.”

Getty Images / Westend61

Even if heart health isn’t your top concern in the new year, you can’t go wrong staying on top of your cardiovascular wellbeing. Sadly, heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). And, a recent study found that 40% of adults between the ages of 50 and 64 without a heart-disease diagnosis still had early signs of a condition called atherosclerosis that put them at a greater risk of experiencing a heart attack (read more on that specific study here). You can never start taking care of your ticker too early. Read on for five ways you can stay on top of your heart health in 2022.

1. Take it one step at a time.

You don’t need to tackle all of these goals at once. Look for ways to sneak some healthier options onto your plate or find ten minutes in the day to stretch your legs between meetings. Simple changes add up.

2. Aim for lean protein.

We all know that fish and seafood are great sources of protein for your heart, and research shows that cutting back on the amount of animal protein in your routine can be a game-changer for heart health.. In any case, avoiding processed meats and sticking to plant protein, seafood and lean cuts of meat can help you keep your heart in good shape. (This list of heart-healthy foods is a good place to start if you need more info on what foods your heart will appreciate most.)

3. Get physical.

“Balance food and calorie intake with physical activity to maintain a healthy weight,” the AHA recommends. As long as you find a version of exercise that you enjoy, it doesn’t matter what it is—though research suggests that both strength training and high-intensity interval training are both excellent ways to protect your heart. Going for an afternoon walk has plenty of benefits too, so those who prefer something low-impact are in good shape.

4. Give yourself a break.

Stress can be tough on the heart. Whether you have a pet whose presence helps you relax or a walking path that helps you clear your head, giving yourself time to enjoy the things that relax you can make a big difference. Try meditation if you’re looking for a calming activity to add to your routine.

5. Make a plan.

You don’t have to meal prep every week if that’s not your style—but you should think about meals and snacks ahead of time if you want to set yourself up for success, the AHA says. When you’re making your next big grocery list, think about adding heart-healthy items like anti-inflammatory foods and whole grains to your cart. Or, if you’d like to start meal planning for the week but need some inspiration, look to simple ideas like this meal plan for beginners.

Bottom Line

You don’t have to center healthy changes around a new year’s resolution this year. Instead, focus on simple, manageable goals that you can take on day by day. Adding heart-healthy ingredients to your meals and taking care of yourself the best you can are both simple, effective ways to stay healthy in the new year.