>DOUGH
>Coercion is not consent.
>Pizzagate is real
>Need sauce.
https://twitter.com/johnpodesta/status/1443665776846778377
Code Red. Democrats: Build Back back better is a must pass bill.
Behind the Math: Why the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal is NOT a Climate Bill by @CAPAction
https://capaction.medium.com/behind-the-math-why-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal-is-not-a-climate-bill-bba0c8beea12
Behind the Math: Why the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal is NOT a Climate Bill
Passing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act alone, without the Build Back Better Act, is not climate action.
In fact, ignoring our planet’s future while considering infrastructure investments is playing into the hands of corrupt fossil fuel interests. This past July, an ExxonMobil lobbyist was exposed specifically outlining their strategy to get Congress to “stick to highways and bridges” in the infrastructure package in order to sideline climate action.
To avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis, the U.S. must reach net-zero economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions no later than 2050. By cutting greenhouse gas emissions to as much as 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, with more state and regulatory action to follow, the combination of infrastructure and reconciliation legislation will put us on the path that science demands. But the two pieces of legislation — the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), and the Build Back Better Act — are not equal.
Of the emissions reductions that Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer recently estimated could result from the combined reconciliation and infrastructure agenda, roughly 94 percent come from investment categories that are primarily made through the Build Back Better Act; only three categories of investment worth just 6 percent of the emissions reductions are primarily made through the IIJA. That equates to approximately one-tenth of a gigaton of annual emissions reduction, comparable to the average annual emissions reduction projected for the Trump administration’s final spending deal. Even this estimate is generous, as it neglects the negative effects of the investments the bill also makes in highways and fossil fuels.
The planned investments from the combination of the IIJA and the Build Back Better Act were estimated by Majority Leader Schumer to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to as low as 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, which with anticipated regulatory action is consistent with President Biden’s science-based goal of 50 to 52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The share of emissions reductions attributable to each investment category was reported in a pie chart totaling 100 percent.
Out of the categories included in the pie chart, 94 percent of the emissions reductions delivered by President Biden’s combined infrastructure and reconciliation agenda would primarily come from the investments made in the Build Back Better Act. Specifically, these investments are represented by the following pie chart categories: coastal resilience, a clean energy and sustainability accelerator, rural co-op clean energy support, fossil fuel subsidy repeals, clean fuel tax incentives, clean building incentives, agricultural conservation and forest management, a methane fee, clean vehicle incentives, a clean electricity payment program, and clean energy tax incentives.
Only three of the categories in the pie chart are primarily invested in through the IIJA: transit electrification and ridership increase, industrial decarbonization demonstration projects, and cleaning up abandoned mines and wells. Together, these three categories represent just 6.4 percent of the emissions reductions. The effects of the bill’s spending on highways, fossil fuel buses, and fossil fuel refueling stations are not evaluated.
Thanks to everyone who joined our first voter education town hall event on #NationalVoterRegistrationDay! This is the first of several webinars we’re planning to inform voters of crucial election information ahead of the 2022 Midterm Elections.
>Notice the nano second mind control flash at :59.
>https://www.removeron.org/
ABOUT OUR CHAIRMAN
DANIEL UHLFELDER
Daniel Uhlfelder is an attorney and public health advocate who has led the fight against Governor Ron DeSantis’ harmful agenda by holding him accountable for the many ways in which he has failed the people of Florida. Over the course of 2020, as the Coronavirus pandemic worsened due DeSantis’ lack of leadership, Daniel’s crusade as the “Grim Reaper” on Florida’s beaches provided him with a national platform to highlight the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing and responsible public health policy. His work earned him coverage in Newsweek, the Washington Post, CNN, Esquire, the Guardian, Inside Edition and other outlets – as well as nearly 200,000 Twitter followers.
Daniel sued Governor DeSantis for violating his constitutional responsibility to protect the citizens of Florida. Prior to this, he fought back against former Arkansas Governor and FOX News contributor Mike Huckabee’s efforts to limit historically guaranteed public access to Florida’s beaches. Most recently, he has criticized those whose efforts to overturn the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election resulted in violence and death during the siege of the US Capitol. To this end, Daniel successfully forced Loews Hotels to cancel a fundraiser in support of US Senator Josh Hawley, who joined Ron DeSantis in leading efforts to keep Donald Trump in power at any cost against the will of more than 81 million American voters.
Mr. Uhlfelder is an alumnus of Stanford University and the University of Florida’s Levin College of Law. He lives in the Florida Panhandle with his wife Michelle and their two school-age children.
>DANIEL UHLFELDER
https://twitter.com/DWUhlfelderLaw
Husband, Dad, lawyer, @Stanford & @UFLaw grad, Florida Grim Reaper, Chairman of @removeron, “a chief tormentor of DeSantis,” & “man who triggers Mike Huckabee”
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/remove_ron_social
https://twitter.com/DWUhlfelderLaw/status/1442237919478140929
“Basket of deplorables” was a compliment
https://www.gainesville.com/story/opinion/2021/09/21/reapers-court-case-has-been-grim-bill-cotterell-opinion/8417740002/
A sarcastic comment shouldn't cause an attack on a lawyer’s livelihood
Bill Cotterell says it's hard to see how Daniel Uhlfelder 'brought the legal profession or judiciary into disrepute'
What the state is doing to Daniel Uhlfelder might be legal but it’s an ugly abuse of the law, intended to intimidate critics of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ COVID policies.
It’s a warning to lawyers, particularly ones like Uhlfelder who attract attention their causes with eye-catching gimmicks as well as lawsuits. If they succeed in stifling Uhlfelder, maybe DeSantis and his diffident judges will next find ways to harass non-attorneys who exercise First Amendment freedoms.
Uhlfelder, a Santa Rosa Beach lawyer, dresses up in a black shroud and, carrying a scythe, portrays the Grim Reaper on Florida beaches. With Florida’s COVID death toll topping 50,000 last week, he does not share DeSantis’ belief that things are going well.
He also formed a political committee, Remove Ron, dedicated to what its name says.
Strolling the sands as Death personified isn’t what got Uhlfelder in trouble. He sued the governor to make him close beaches last year. Circuit Judge Kevin Carroll ruled that he had no authority to make DeSantis do that, but told Uhlfelder he should appeal to the First District Court of Appeal.
He did. Three judges of the DCA not only dismissed the appeal but accused Uhlfelder of filing a frivolous case. They called his brief “short on law and long on overstatement, invective and political atmospherics,” and said Uhlfelder “repeated personal attacks” on DeSantis.
That sort of stuff better befits a political campaign than court filings.
Even though Carroll, the trial judge, had suggested he appeal, the DCA panel directed the state attorney in Pensacola to file a motion accusing Uhlfelder of professional misconduct and violating his oath as a member of the Florida Bar.
That was because Uhlfelder told one of our Capital Bureau reporters, “I do find it interesting that this opinion attacking my critiques of Gov. DeSantis appeared just two days after I launched a (political) committee to remove Ron DeSantis.”
Not nice, but it’s hard to see how Uhlfelder’s comment brought the legal profession or judiciary into disrepute. He didn’t say the judges got paid off, acted out of some prejudicial self-interest, or are so enthralled by their own black-robed dignity that they can brook not even mild disagreement.
At worst, he implied that the Panhandle DCA — a conservative court that’s very friendly to DeSantis — might have a baked-in desire to please the governor. He didn’t say the governor’s office had asked the judges to send a message, like, “Hey, nice little law license you got there — be a real shame if, ya know, something was to happen to it …”
Prosecutors usually get evidence from police and decide whether to file charges against a miscreant, but State Attorney Ginger Bowden Madden’s office seemed a bit chagrined by being given a contract on Uhlfelder. The first enumeration in its complaint says, in effect, “Look, the DCA told us to do this.”
Former Chief Justice Fred Lewis and retired Judge Robert Benton, a 22-year member of the DCA, filed affidavits with the Florida Bar in support of Uhlfelder. Among other things, they said his close-the-beaches lawsuit was not frivolous and his remark after losing the appeal did not purport to be anything other than his opinion.
You know — First Amendment, and all that.
Lawyers have a duty to avoid anything that brings the legal system into disrepute. But other than the judges’ collective hunch, there’s no reason to think Uhlfelder filed his suit just to kick the governor’s shins.
And he said the timing of his troubles was “interesting,” not corrupt or unethical. Well, it is interesting, even suspicious. But he just said “interesting.”
Official sanctions against attorneys should be sought for criminal stuff like lying or obstructing justice. A sarcastic comment ought to be answered in kind, perhaps with a spoken retort from the bench, not an attack on a lawyer’s livelihood.
At worst, Uhlfelder’s actions look like a showboating attempt to make the state do what DeSantis didn’t want to do — shut down beaches in a state that depends on tourist revenue. The COVID pandemic made that plausible, although Judge Carroll determined the law wouldn’t let him do it.
Uhlfelder had nothing to gain personally if he’d succeeded. And if we’re talking about lowering public respect for the law, the black-robed cause of that is not the Grim Reaper.
Bill Cotterell is a retired Tallahassee Democrat capitol reporter.
>You know — First Amendment, and all that.
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-lets-all-be-honest-about-hydroxychloroquine-20201013-5j5q4i23qvfuzos4jh7ztc3usa-story.html
Let’s all be honest about hydroxychloroquine: Evidence is more positive than many in the medical community admit
Hydroxychloroquine is ineffective and unsafe in the treatment of COVID-19: This is the belief held by millions of Americans and many healthcare professionals. After months of randomized clinical trials yielding findings that were not statistically significant, and others reporting side effects, no one could be blamed for reaching this conclusion.
But an important slice of the hydroxychloroquine data tells a different story.
Because of the medication’s politicization, and the pernicious tendency for dissenting perspectives to be silenced during the pandemic, data supporting hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness have been almost inaudible. But a recent analysis pooling together results of randomized clinical trials testing hydroxychloroquine’s use in early COVID-19 infection should substantially raise the volume.
The hydroxychloroquine saga cannot be fully appreciated without first considering the unusual circumstances under which it arose. While the medical profession has always sustained debate over which treatments are best, the tenor of the hydroxychloroquine controversy is unique. Physicians who have advocated for its effectiveness have remained steadfast in their support of the medication, despite unsupportive clinical trials enrolling hospitalized patients, social media blackouts of their opinions, and a chorus of politicians and health officials telling them — and the country — that they’re not only wrong but reckless.
While physicians who hold marginalized or unpopular positions about treatments are often considered by peers to be motivated by profit or other self-serving interests, these physicians were unnoteworthy in that regard, and would largely have been considered “mainstream” prior to the pandemic. Their clinical experiences were dismissed as anecdotal, but consistently achieving patient outcomes that were markedly better than those reported around the country fueled their confidence and tenacity. The nation and the world may now benefit from their steadfastness.
The key data come from randomized trials testing hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness when used to prevent or treat COVID-19 infection in the early stages of disease, while patients are still home and not hospitalized with severe pneumonia. Because they minimize bias, well-performed randomized trials yield weighty clinical evidence. And unlike many of the clinical trials enrolling hospitalized patients, the hydroxychloroquine doses used in outpatient studies have been lower and not in the toxic range.
These lower doses are more aligned with the reputation for safety that hydroxychloroquine has accrued over decades of use in patients with lupus or needing malaria prophylaxis. Studies generally used a dose ranging from 400 mg one day per week for prevention to 600 mg daily for up to one week for treatment, safe for most older adults with comorbidities. Additionally, early treatment is consistent with what we know about the benefits of earlier antiviral therapy for other viral infections, such as oseltamivir (Tamiflu) in influenza, acyclovir in herpes encephalitis, zanamivir for influenza prophylaxis, and HIV antiviral therapy for pre-exposure or post-exposure prophylaxis.