Central U.S. is 'the most unusually cold region on the planet' right now

Jessica Hullinger

Record-setting cold weather has paralyzed much of America, bringing freezing temperatures and snow to parts of the country that haven't seen such weather in decades — if ever in modern history.

More than 3 million Americans were without power Monday. The vast majority of those power outages — more than 2.6 million — were in Texas, CNN reports, where freezing temperatures and high demand for heat set off rolling outages. Austin, "the city with palm trees and typically mild weather," was covered with six inches of snow, "an amount not seen since 1966," The New York Times reports.

Texas' power outages can be attributed to "an electricity grid that is independent from surrounding states, low natural gas supplies, along with sky-high prices and reduced output from the state's numerous wind turbines," The Washington Post explains.

In some parts of the country, temperatures were 50 degrees below average, making the central United States "the most unusually cold region on the planet," the Post reports. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was bracing for temperatures of -10 Fahrenheit, which would make Monday night the coldest night ever observed. Wind chills hit -40 and -50 in parts of Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado. "There is the potential for more than 240 cold temperature records to be broken by Tuesday evening," CNN reports.

This is just the first of two major winter storms expected this week. The second is forecast to hit on Wednesday.

More stories from theweek.com
Republicans are suddenly very in favor of a third political party, according to Gallup
7 scathingly funny cartoons about Republicans' impeachment cowardice
Texas health officials rush to distribute thousands of vaccines after power loss

Latest Stories

  • Marjorie Taylor Greene calls for armed troops to be placed in schools on Parkland anniversary

    The National Guard was in Washington DC in response to the attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters

  • Myanmar rattled by army movements, apparent internet cutoff

    Sightings of armored personnel carriers in Myanmar’s biggest city and an internet shutdown raised political tensions late Sunday, after vast numbers of people around the country flouted orders against demonstrations to protest the military’s seizure of power. Public concern has already been heightened for the past few nights by what many charge is the military’s manipulation of criminals released from prison to carry out nighttime violence and stir up panic. Ambassadors from the United States and Canada and 12 European nations called on Myanmar's security forces to refrain from violence against those “protesting the overthrow of their legitimate government.”

  • California Realtor Loses Job After Racist Video Harassing Asian Woman Goes Viral

    A real estate agent from the Brentwood neighborhood of Los Angeles was fired recently after a video of him hurling racist comments at an Asian woman surfaced online. What happened: On Wednesday, a social media user who goes by "Em" shared the video in a now-deleted tweet.

  • Gulf expat exodus could continue until 2023, S&P says

    The population in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states declined by about 4% last year due to an exodus of expatriates after the coronavirus crisis and lower oil prices, S&P Global Ratings said in a report on Monday. The oil producing region was hit hard last year as COVID-19 restrictions impacted non-oil economic sectors, and lower oil prices and crude output cuts weighed on its main income source. "We expect the proportion of foreigners in the region will continue to decline through 2023 relative to the national population, because of subdued non-oil sector growth and workforce nationalization policies," S&P said.

  • The Times Corrects the Record on Officer Sicknick’s Death, Sort Of

    A few days ago, the New York Times quietly “updated” its report, published over a month earlier, asserting that Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick had been killed by being struck with a fire extinguisher during the January 6 riot. According to the update, “new information has emerged regarding the death of the Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick that questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police.” As I detailed in a column last week, what the Times calls “new information” actually began emerging the same day the paper filed its January 8 report. That report was (and still is) entitled, “Capitol Police Officer Dies from Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage.” It was not the only such Times report from that day. There was another, entitled, “He Dreamed of Being a Police Officer, Then Was Killed by a Pro-Trump Mob,” in which the Times asserted: On Wednesday, pro-Trump supporters attacked that citadel of democracy [i.e., the Capitol], overpowered Mr. Sicknick, 42, and struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support. He died on Thursday evening. Yet, as early as the morning of January 8, KHOU in Houston reported that Sicknick had died from a stroke. The KHOU story made no mention of the officer’s being struck by a fire extinguisher. It did claim, however, that the stroke occurred “at the Capitol during riots,” and a caption under the officer’s photograph stated that he died “of injuries sustained during the riot at the Capitol.” The headline of the KHOU story attributes the conclusion that a stroke was the cause of death to the head of the Capitol Police union, Gus Papathanasiou. The body of the story identified Papathanasiou as its source for what turned out to be the erroneous report that Sicknick had passed away during the day on Thursday (the day after the riot); in fact, he was still on life support at the time and was pronounced dead late Thursday night. My aforementioned column noted that Fox News’s Tucker Carlson (relying on a report from the website Revolver News) had just reported that Sicknick was not taken to the hospital directly from the Capitol. To the contrary, not only had the officer made it back to police headquarters; he had texted his brother hours after the siege, stating that although he had been “pepper sprayed twice,” he was “in good shape.” Moreover, Carlson pointed to a CNN report on February 2, to the effect that, according to unidentified law-enforcement officials, medical examiners had found no evidence of blunt-force trauma on Sicknick’s body and concluded the fire extinguisher account was not true. To be clear, my purpose in focusing on this story has not been to break news, much less to claim credit for the Times’ implicit acknowledgement that its original stories were wrong. In addition to Tucker Carlson, Revolver News, and KHOU, Julie Kelly of American Greatness was also on this before I was — and has emphasized that I was duped. I have focused on the story for two reasons. First, I am one of the analysts who uncritically relied on the Times’ initial reporting, deducing from it the conclusion that Sicknick had been “murdered” by the rioters — not a long logical leap if you credit the assertion that a police officer was bashed over the head with a lethal object by rioters who were intentionally and forcibly confronting security forces. Julie Kelly took me to task again yesterday for having “regurgitated” the “narrative that Sicknick was murdered,” which I certainly did do — although I am not, as she describes, a political pundit of the “NeverTrump Right.” Because I repeated a very serious allegation that had not been supported by credible evidence from identifiable sources, I thought it was important to make clear, to the extent it is in my power to do so, that there is now immense reason to doubt the original reporting — while confessing (with a link to the column in which I included the “murder” allegation) that I was as guilty as any other analyst or reporter who amplified the dubious account. Second, and more significantly, the death of Officer Sicknick became a building block for the House’s impeachment of former President Trump and of the allegations posited by the Democratic House impeachment managers that were publicly filed in their pretrial brief on February 2. By then, there was already substantial reason to question the fire-extinguisher allegation. Prosecutors have an obligation, rooted in due process and professional ethics, to reveal exculpatory evidence. That includes evidence that is inconsistent with the theory of guilt they have posited. Even if Sicknick’s death was causally connected to the rioting, prosecutors would be obligated to correct the record if it did not happen the way they expressly represented that it happened. The House impeachment managers had not done that last week when NR published my column raising that issue, and to this day, although the impeachment trial is now over, we are still in the dark about the circumstances surrounding the officer’s tragic death at age 42. Which brings us back to the original Times report. The “updated” version is, to put it mildly, confusing. At first, it attributes to unidentified “authorities” the claim that Sicknick “died from injuries sustained ‘while physically engaging’ with pro-Trump rioters.” The Times then describes Sicknick as “only the fourth member of the force to be killed in the line of duty since its founding two centuries ago.” That assertion is published as if it were an established fact, with no source. But has it been established that Sicknick was “killed”? Has it been established that he died from injuries sustained while physically engaging with pro-Trump rioters? To my knowledge, it has not. And even the Times implicitly admits that it is unsure of what it is saying. A few paragraphs later, the same report now states: The circumstances surrounding Mr. Sicknick’s death were not immediately clear, and the Capitol Police said only that he had “passed away due to injuries sustained while on duty.” This seems very lawyered. “Sustained while on duty” is not the same as a “sustained ‘while physically engaging’ with pro-Trump rioters.” The Times goes on to acknowledge that “law enforcement officials initially said Mr. Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher” but that “weeks later, police sources and investigators were at odds over whether he was hit,” and that “one law enforcement official” (unidentified, of course) says that “medical experts have said [Sicknick] did not die of blunt force trauma.” The latest Capitol Police version of events seems to be, “He returned to his division office and collapsed. . . . He was taken to a local hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries.” What injuries? We’re not told. Although the Times further concedes that it is “unclear where Mr. Sicknick’s encounter with rioters took place,” the paper weirdly adds that “photos and videos posted by a local reporter during the night of chaos showed a man spraying a fire extinguisher outside the Senate chamber, with a small number of police officers overlooking the area on a nearby stairway.” Okay, but so what? The Times does not say these officers included Sicknick, and the paper’s original claim — which became the House impeachment managers’ formal allegation — was that Sicknick had been hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. In light of the way the Times has already confused matters, to the point of having to provide a not-very-edifying “update,” why speculate that the cited photos and videos are relevant to Sicknick’s death? Meantime, the word “stroke” does not appear in the Times’ updated story. So is the paper discounting the report that Sicknick died of a stroke, even though that assertion was attributed to a named person presumably in a position to know — the head of the Capitol Police union? And what is the basis for the Times’ continued claim that Sicknick died from injuries sustained while physically engaging with pro-Trump rioters? Of course, it is entirely possible — perhaps even probable — that this is true. But without an autopsy report, and with indications that Sicknick was able to get back to his office from the siege, later told his brother he was in good shape despite being pepper-sprayed, and bore no signs of blunt-force trauma, why maintain this assertion? After all, the Times has updated its story because the story, as originally published, was misleading. And the Democratic House managers — after resting their allegation solely on the Times’ dubious fire-extinguisher claim — essentially steered clear of the circumstances surrounding Sicknick’s death during their impeachment trial presentation. Irrespective of whether impeachment had ever been pursued, it is vital that we have an accurate accounting of what happened on January 6, including an accurate accounting of what happened to Officer Brian Sicknick. And since impeachment was pursued, we are also owed an explanation of why the House managers did not clarify the circumstances of Sicknick’s death after making an explosive allegation about how it came to pass.

  • 12-year-old shot and killed armed intruder during botched home invasion, police say

    Charges ‘not anticipated’ to be brought against juvenile

  • Power cut across Texas as winter storm hits

    A winter storm dropping snow and ice also sent temperatures plunging across the southern Plains, prompting a power emergency in Texas a day after conditions canceled flights and snarled traffic across large swaths of the U.S.

  • Turkey accuses US of backing PKK after Turks killed in Iraq

    Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan laid into the United States, accusing it of supporting Kurdish militants on Monday, days after Turkish troops found the bodies of 13 Turkish soldiers, police and civilians abducted by Kurdish insurgents in a cave complex in northern Iraq. Erdogan also took aim at a U.S. State Department statement that deplored the hostages' deaths, but added that the U.S. would condemn the deaths “in the strongest possible terms” if it is confirmed that they died at the hands of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK.

  • Raskin: "We have no regrets" on impeachment strategy

    Democrats "have no regrets at all" about their approach to former President Trump's second impeachment trial, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said on Sunday's "Meet the Press." Driving the news: Trump was acquitted on Saturday when the Senate failed to reach a two-thirds majority vote necessary to convict. However, seven Republicans joined Democrats to vote "guilty" making the final 57-43 vote the most bipartisan margin in favor of conviction in history. Stay on top of the latest market trends and economic insights with Axios Markets. Subscribe for freeWhen asked about the possible merits if House impeachment managers had narrowed their strategy to charge Trump with dereliction of duty, Raskin said: "You know, remember, these Republicans who voted to acquit in the face of this mountain of unrefuted evidence were going to find some reason to do it. So, if we had charged dereliction of duty they would have said, 'That's not an impeachable offense.'""So, you know what, we have no regrets at all. We left it totally out there on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and every senator knew exactly what happened. And just go back and listen to McConnell’s speech. Everybody was convinced of the case we put forward," Raskin said. "I thought that I successfully demolish them at the trial but, you know, there's no reasoning with people who basically are, you know, acting like members of a religious cult and when they leave office should be selling flowers at Dulles Airport, you know."Of note: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who voted to acquit Trump, condemned the former president's actions around the Jan. 6 Capitol siege as a "disgraceful dereliction of duty." Trump is “practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day, no question about it,” McConnell said on the Senate floor on Saturday night.Like this article? Get more from Axios and subscribe to Axios Markets for free.

  • Dollar weakens as market optimism lifts riskier currencies

    The U.S. dollar held near two-week lows on Monday, as optimism about COVID-19 vaccine rollouts and a planned $1.9 trillion U.S. stimulus package offered a boost to riskier currencies, stock markets and commodity prices. Among the gainers versus the weaker dollar, the British pound broke $1.39 for the first time in nearly three years, helped by expectations that the success of the UK's COVID-19 vaccination programme could enable the economy to open up and rebound. Commodity currencies strengthened too, with the South African rand touching a one-year high.

  • Home appraisal for Black couple skyrockets after white friend pretends to be homeowner

    Black Americans continue to face discrimination when it comes to building wealth through homeownership. Paul Austin and his wife, Tenisha Tate Austin, of Marin City purchased their first home off-market from another Black family in 2016. “I read the appraisal,” Tate Austin told ABC7.

  • Democrats Flirt with Destroying Another Senate Guardrail

    Senate Democrats considering the destruction of another set of Senate rules might want to heed the words of English lawyer and chancellor Sir Thomas More to his son-in-law centuries ago: And when the last law was down and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? Then-Senator Harry Reid started this modern clearcutting of the rules back in 2013. He used the “nuclear option” to lower the vote threshold for confirmation in order to stack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Senator Mitch McConnell escalated by using the same standard to confirm Supreme Court nominees. As Majority Leader Chuck Schumer toys with the idea of blowing up the legislative filibuster as well, he is potentially poised to first unravel another important — if lesser-known — Senate rule in pursuit of an all-encompassing COVID-relief bill under the terms of “budget reconciliation.” We’re talking about the Byrd Rule (named after the late Senator Robert Byrd), which limits the ability of the majority to stuff extraneous legislative goodies into budget-related proposals and still pass them with a simple-majority vote under that process. Senator Byrd saw the danger of using reconciliation, which limits amendments and debate, to pursue broader, non-budgetary legislation outside regular order. As a defender of the right of all senators to debate and amend legislation, he fastened these restrictions onto the reconciliation process. This is for the greater good: the Byrd Rule protects Social Security from the reconciliation process, for instance, while limiting committees to proposals in their jurisdiction and requiring that the budget relevance of any proposal considered under this process be more than “merely incidental.” What this means is that major legislative policy changes can be made only when all senators have the right to fully debate and amend legislation — and to filibuster. Reconciliation otherwise “streamlines” this process at the expense of the minority. Today, fueled by rage and revenge, the leaders of the Senate care nothing for the reasons behind the rules; they want only to pass their legislation as quickly as possible. Most of the attention these past weeks has gone to the $15 minimum wage contained inside the COVID-relief package. This hardly meets the reconciliation standard on its own, but there will be other violations of the Byrd Rule in the bill the House will send to the Senate. That’s why Senate Democrats could aim to break the glass on Senate rules. As described by parliamentary expert Martin Gold, there are two ways to achieve this. First, there’s the more targeted attack on the Byrd Rule. Say Vice President Harris is in the chair when a senator raises a point of order against, for example, the minimum-wage hike. The Senate parliamentarian advises her that this particular section of the reconciliation bill is out of order. Despite all evidence and precedent that the section is out of order, the VP rules otherwise. Now the section takes only a simple majority to pass. However, if a senator who supports the Byrd Rule challenges the ruling of the chair, it will require a 60-vote majority to overrule Harris. That’s a high bar. So here, the chair’s judgment, which likely would stand, changes the precedent so that any other item in the bill that violates the Byrd Rule can be ruled acceptable under the new standard just established by the vice president. Republicans would have loved this when they were trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, but they respected Senate rules protecting the rights of the minority. This limited, surgical strike on the Byrd Rule would still disrupt the precedent in perpetuity. Meanwhile, there’s a broader attack that could be implemented. In this scenario, the majority leader addresses the chair and says that waiving the Byrd Rule only takes a simple-majority vote. It is clear under the rules and the precedents that this is false. If the chair rules that it takes 60 votes to waive the Byrd Rule, the majority leader then appeals the ruling of the chair, which takes a simple-majority vote to overturn. Bingo — the protections of the Byrd Rule are dead, and now it takes only a simple-majority vote to put any legislative proposal the majority wants into the budget-reconciliation bill, bypassing legitimate debate and amendment. The result of this action would threaten any rule in the Senate. If at any time the majority wants to get rid of any rule, all they would have to do is appeal the ruling of the chair and muster a simple majority — silencing the opposition and forcing their will on the American people. Once upon a time, the U.S. Senate was called the world’s greatest deliberative body. As envisioned by Thomas Jefferson, there were rules that protected the minority and allowed for thorough debate. Sadly, it appears this current Senate majority cares little for the precedents that earned the U.S. Senate that title. But some caution on their part might be well-advised self-interest; tables have been known to turn. Editor’s Note: This piece has been updated with a corrected version of the quote attributed to Sir Thomas More.

  • Takeaways: AP investigation of China COVID-19 disinformation

    As the coronavirus spread last year, former President Donald Trump and leading U.S. conservatives floated the idea that the virus may have escaped from a Chinese lab or was created by China as a bioweapon. China pushed back. A nine-month AP investigation, conducted in collaboration with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, found China launched what may be its first global digital disinformation campaign, using its growing presence on Western social media to seed and spread stories suggesting the U.S. created COVID-19 as a bioweapon.

  • 500 Black and Asian Community Members Rally in Oakland as Holiday Weekend Sees Wave of Attacks, Robberies

    Members of Black and Asian communities convened on Saturday in Oakland, CA to rally against recent anti-Asian attacks, especially those in the Bay Area. What happened: During the rally, various speakers discussed the importance of solidarity among Black and Asian communities. More than 500 people showed up at Madison Park, according to NBC Bay Area.

  • Letter from Africa: How the Nairobi Expressway is changing Kenya's capital

    The building of an expressway in Kenya's capital could divide Nairobi in more ways than one.

  • Wind turbines are freezing in Texas amid ‘unprecedented’ storm

    Wind turbines accounted for almost a quarter of Texas’s energy in 2020, making it the second-largest power source after natural gas

  • House Republicans Question Pelosi’s Security Decisions Leading Up To Capitol Riots

    House Republicans on Monday called for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to answer “many important questions” about her “responsibility for the security” of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, when a pro-Trump mob stormed the building. Republicans on several committees sent Pelosi a letter asking why, among other things, former Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund had his January 4 request for National Guard assistance rejected by former Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving, according to Fox News. Irving reportedly said he was concerned about “the optics” and didn’t feel the “intelligence supported it.” “As you are aware, the Speaker of the House is not only the leader of the majority party, but also has enormous institutional responsibilities,” said the letter, written by House Administration Committee Ranking Member Rodney Davis, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan, House Oversight Committee Ranking Member James Comer and House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes. “The Speaker is responsible for all operational decisions made within the House,” the letter says, adding that Pelosi, her staff and an army of appointed House officials had kept a “very heavy-handed and tightly controlled approach to House operations” over the past two years. “When then-Chief Sund made a request for national guard support on January 4th, why was that request denied?” the group wrote. “Did Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving get permission or instruction from your staff on January 4th prior to denying Chief Sund’s request for the national guard?” The letter adds that on the day of the Capitol riots, Sund moved to notify the Sergeant at Arms of his request for national guard assistance and said it “took over an hour for his request to be approved because the SAA had to run the request up the chain of command.” That chain “undoubtedly included” Pelosi and her “designees,” the Republicans say. They blast Pelosi for her “partisan” decision to “unilaterally” fire Irving and demand Sund’s resignation. While Pelosi said on January 7 that she had called for Sund’s resignation as he “hasn’t called us since this happen,” the Republicans say that claim was “refuted” by Sund, who “detailed two occasions that he briefed you on the situation on the Capitol campus—the first occurring at 5:36 p.m. and the second at 6:25 p.m., both on January 6th.” Davis, Jordan, Comer and Nunes also questioned the reliability of the independent security review being conducted by General Russel Honoré, who Pelosi appointed on her own last month “without consultation of the minority.” They expressed concerns that House officers have denied requests to “procure and preserve information” on Pelosi’s behalf. “Such information is necessary to properly conduct oversight on the January 6th events,” they letter says. “Preservation and production requests were sent to the SAA and the House Chief Administrative Officer, among other legislative agencies, requesting that such relevant information concerning the attack on the Capitol, including correspondence, video footage, audio recordings, and other records, be preserved and produced to the relevant committees.” “In multiple cases, your appointees, acting on your behalf, have denied requests to produce this information,” the Republicans add. “The response we received was: ‘We regret to inform you that given the scope of the information requested and the concerns implicated by the nature of the request… we are unable to comply with the request at this time.’” The group says they learned that “some of the same material we requested was provided to the House Judiciary Committee on a partisan basis.” “This is unacceptable. Madam Speaker, that direction could only have come from you,” they wrote.

  • Bangladesh sends more Rohingya refugees to new island

    Bangladesh authorities sent a fourth group of Rohingya refugees from Myanmar to a newly developed island in the Bay of Bengal on Monday despite calls by human rights groups for a halt to the process. The roughly 2,000 Rohingya who had been living in the sprawling refugee camps of Cox’s Bazar were sent to Bhasan Char, an island specifically developed to accommodate 100,000 of the 1 million Rohingya who have fled from neighboring Myanmar, M. Mozammel Haque, a commander of the Bangladesh navy, told reporters. While human rights groups have criticized the moves and some are being forced to go against their will, the government has insisted that refugees moving to the island have done so voluntarily.

  • 7-year-old boy rescued after accidentally landing in trash truck

    “I got picked up and thrown to where I was going to be a mashed potato,” Elias Quezada, who was hiding in his grandmother's trash can, said.

  • Philippines wants more than 'loose change' for U.S. troops deal

    The United States is providing the Philippines with military aid that amounts to "loose change" compared to other Asian countries, a top government spokesman said on Monday, supporting demands by President Rodrigo Duterte for Washington to pay more. Duterte said last week the United States should pay more if it wants to maintain the two-decade old Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which he unilaterally cancelled last year in an angry response to an ally being denied a U.S. visa.