From bfb58b5194491c65f45a6dcc40e67155f410dbff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Navan Chauhan Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 12:45:04 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Added daily report --- archive-covid-19/08 February, 2021.html | 199 ++++++++++ archive-daily-dose/08 February, 2021.html | 450 ++++++++++++++++++++++ index.html | 4 +- 3 files changed, 651 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 archive-covid-19/08 February, 2021.html create mode 100644 archive-daily-dose/08 February, 2021.html diff --git a/archive-covid-19/08 February, 2021.html b/archive-covid-19/08 February, 2021.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b699f6c --- /dev/null +++ b/archive-covid-19/08 February, 2021.html @@ -0,0 +1,199 @@ + + + + + + 08 February, 2021 + +Covid-19 Sentry + +

Covid-19 Sentry

+

Contents

+ +

From Preprints

+ +

From Clinical Trials

+ +

From PubMed

+ +

From Patent Search

+ +embedded image +

+ + + + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/archive-daily-dose/08 February, 2021.html b/archive-daily-dose/08 February, 2021.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c04be7c --- /dev/null +++ b/archive-daily-dose/08 February, 2021.html @@ -0,0 +1,450 @@ + + + + + + 08 February, 2021 + +Daily-Dose + +

Daily-Dose

+

Contents

+ +

From New Yorker

+ +

From Vox

+ + +

+Though The Weeknd didn’t don the controversial face bandages he wore when performing at the American Music Awards last November, he one-upped that look for the Super Bowl. This time, in a brightly lit funhouse of golden mirrors, he manifested a whole crowd of face-bandaged doppelgangers, all colliding against the mirrors and each other in a rendition of “Can’t Feel My Face,” enacting the stumbling, drug-fueled stupor of the song’s theme. It was the main taste of the orgiastic cocktail of self-destruction The Weeknd’s performances usually proffer. +

+
+ +
+
+ +
+

+The performance was otherwise benign — not only because The Weeknd was performing for a much larger and more all-ages audience than usual, but because Covid-19 safety protocols meant a smaller crowd at the stadium and presumably fewer opportunities for complicated onstage hijinks (or surprise cameos from guest artists). The Weeknd mostly performed solo, backed by an ensemble whose limited choreography — and at one point, violin instrumental — was mostly performed in place. When the bandaged dancers finally showed up again, it was to take over the football field like a surrealist marching band, at first all standing a rigid six feet apart. +

+

+In the middle, The Weeknd paraded in his now-iconic red sequin jacket, skipping into an intense, bouncy rendition of “Blinding Lights” — the song that arguably won him this Super Bowl gig in the first place. +

+
+ +
+

+The Weeknd has frequently drawn comparisons to Michael Jackson, one of his biggest artistic influences, and the scene gave off a definite “Thriller vibe,” with the choreography getting progressively more unhinged and erratic. The halftime show ended with The Weeknd walking off the field solo after razing the field of his dopples, who lay as if dead — perhaps felled by the force of The Weeknd’s concert intensity. +

+

+All in all, even though this was an unlikely halftime show featuring an unlikely performer at an uncertain Super Bowl, it was exactly the halftime show we needed. The Weeknd strode through it with confidence and charm, reminding viewers that even though plenty is different in 2021, the most important things — including the music and the magic of live performance — remain the same. +

+

+

+ + +

+Other senators also attempted to question the legitimacy of the trial. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) said that the House vote on impeachment was all for show — and resembled the legal process in an authoritarian state. +

+

+“There was no process. It’s almost like, if it happened in the Soviet Union, you would have called it a show trial,” Cassidy said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “The president wasn’t there, he wasn’t allowed counsel, they didn’t amass evidence, in five hours they kind of judged and boom, he’s impeached,” he said. +

+

+The House impeachment process, in fact, does not involve a trial; the Senate trial following impeachment does. Trump was invited to testify at his Senate trial, but declined. +

+
+ +
+

+Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) argued on CBS’ Face the Nation that the trial was an “unconstitutional exercise” and that “the outcome is really not in doubt.” +

+

+He suggested that attempts to sanction Trump’s behavior should instead be dealt with through the conventional legal system. “If you believe he committed a crime, he can be prosecuted like any other citizen; impeachment is a political process,” Graham said. +

+
+ +
+

+Graham is correct in asserting that the outcome of the trial is in little doubt; 17 Republicans would have to join every member of the Democratic caucus for a conviction to be successful, as a conviction requires two-thirds of the Senate. As was evident Sunday, there appears to be little appetite for such a vote among the GOP. +

+

+Impeachment, however, is about the prosecution of crimes — specifically, “high crimes and misdemeanors,” according to the Constitution, and Trump’s impeachment trial does not appear to be an “unconstitutional exercise,” as Graham suggested. +

+

+There are historical examples of officials being tried after leaving office +

+

+Many Republicans have argued that the Senate trial lacks constitutional legitimacy because Trump has already left office. But scholars and Democratic lawmakers have pointed out that the US Constitution is silent on the issue, and point to previous examples of federal officials, such as judges, being tried even after leaving office. +

+

+According to the Wall Street Journal, a report from the Congressional Research Service — Congress’s internal research organization — found that “while the matter is open to debate, the weight of scholarly authority agrees that former officials may be impeached and tried.” +

+

+The CRS report cited the example of Secretary of War William Belknap, who was impeached by the House and tried in the Senate in 1876, though he had already resigned after evidence emerged that he had acted corruptly. +

+

+Laurence Tribe, a legal scholar at Harvard Law School, wrote in the Washington Post in January that “the clear weight of history, original understanding and congressional practice bolsters the case for concluding that the end of Donald Trump’s presidency would not end his Senate trial.” +

+

+Tribe wrote that the Constitution’s references to impeachment do not limit impeachment power based on whether an official is holding office. “Nothing in the Constitution suggests that a president who has shown himself to be a deadly threat to our survival as a constitutional republic should be able to run out the clock on our ability to condemn his conduct and to ensure that it can never recur,” he wrote. +

+

+That isn’t to say there is a consensus on this view. Former federal appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig has argued that the Senate trial would be unconstitutional, and says that he believes only the Supreme Court can make a definitive judgment on the matter. +

+

+There is still a lot that’s uncertain about the trial +

+

+A open question is whether any GOP senator will vote to convict Trump, particularly given that not all Republican senators have attempted to undermine the legitimacy of the Senate trial. +

+

+Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania — one of the five Republican senators who voted against Paul’s motion — said he believes the process is constitutional on Sunday. +

+

+“I think it’s clearly constitutional to conduct a Senate trial with respect to an impeachment. In this case the impeachment occurred prior to the president leaving office,” Toomey said on CNN’s State of the Union. “I still think the best outcome would have been for the president to resign. Obviously he chose not to do that.” +

+

+“I’m going to listen to the arguments on both sides and make the decision that I think is right,” he added. +

+
+ +
+

+While there is some question about possible Republican conviction votes, Democrats appear far more united on the issue. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) encapsulated Democrats’ argument Sunday, defending the trial as something that’s not only allowed by the Constitution — but demanded by it. +

+

+“There is clear precedent for the Senate moving forward on impeachment trial once being sent articles, even after an official has left office, and so my analysis here sort of begins and ends with what is my constitutional responsibility,” he said on Fox News Sunday. +

+

+“Impeachment comes not only with the provision to remove an official from office, but to disqualify them from future office,” Murphy said. +

+

+Murphy also noted that there remain some big questions about how the trial will be conducted — including if witnesses will be brought in. He argued that since the riot was public, it wasn’t as necessary to call witnesses as it was during Trump’s first Senate impeachment trial, but that “if the House [impeachment] managers want to call witnesses, I think we should allow them to do so.” +

+

+One broad point of agreement between the two parties is that both Democrats and Republicans want the trial — which begins Tuesday — to be quick. Republicans will favor a short trial as a damage control measure to reduce public discussion of Trump’s behavior. Democrats, on the other hand, have an ambitious legislative agenda and appointee confirmation schedule, and can’t afford to have senators wrapped up in impeachment matters for too long without slowing those down. +

+ +

From The Hindu: Sports

+ +

From The Hindu: National News

+ +

From BBC: Europe

+ +

From Ars Technica

+ +

From Jokes Subreddit

+ + + + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/index.html b/index.html index 08b93e2..0a810a9 100644 --- a/index.html +++ b/index.html @@ -13,9 +13,9 @@ Archive | Daily Reports
  • Covid-19

    • Daily Dose

    -