News outlets thought it useful to produce graphics about this Australian’s terminating exploits. CNN produced one with voyeuristic relish, making it appear much like a Midsomer Murders episode. Details aplenty are provided, including the gruesome end for the victims. “Gail and Heather died on August 4 [2023] from multiorgan failure, followed by Don on August 5 after he failed to respond to a liver transplant.”  Fortunately, Ian Wilkinson survived, but the rumour-mongering hack journalist can barely take it, almost regretful of that fact: “after almost two months of intensive treatment”, he was discharged.

Having an opinion on this case has become standard fare, amassing on a turd heap of supposition, second guessing and wonder. The range is positively Chaucerian in its village variety. The former court official interviewed about the killer’s guilty mind and poisoning stratagems, stating the obvious and dulling. The criminologist, keen on career advancement and pseudo-psychology, attempted to gain insight into Patterson’s mind, commenting on her apparent ordinariness.

One example of the latter is to be found in The Conversation, where we are told by Xanthe Mallett with platitudinous and forced certainty how Patterson, speaking days after the incident, “presented as your typical, average woman of 50.” If attempting to kill four people using fungi is a symptom of average, female ordinariness of a certain age, we all best start making our own meals. But Mallett thinks it is precisely that sense of the ordinary that led to a public obsession, a mania with crime and motivation. “The juxtaposition between the normality of a family lunch (and the sheer vanilla-ness of the accused) and the seriousness of the situation sent the media into overdrive.”

This is certainly not the view of Dr. Chris Webster, who answered the Leongatha Hospital doorbell when Patterson first presented.  Realising her link to the other four victims suffering symptoms of fungal poisoning, Webster explained that death cap mushrooms were suspected. Asking Patterson where she got them, she replied with one word: “Woolworths.” This was enough for the doctor to presume guilt, an attitude which certainly gave one of Australia’s most ruthless supermarket chains a graceful pardon. “She was evil and very smart to have planned it all and carried out but didn’t quite dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’.”

The marketer, thrilled with branding and promotion, suggests how Patterson Inc. can become an ongoing concern of merchandise, plays, and scripts. (Think of a shirt sporting the following: “I ate beef Wellington and survived”.) The ABC did not waste much time commissioning Toxic, a show created by Elise McCredie and Tony Ayres, aided by ABC podcaster Rachel Brown. Ayres hams it up by saying that, “True stories ask storytellers to probe the complexities of human behaviour. What really lies beneath the headlines? It’s both a challenge and a responsibility to go beyond the surface – to reveal, not just to sensationalise.” Given that this project is a child of frothy publicity born from sensationalism and hysteria, the comment is almost touching.

The media prompts and updates, mischaracterising Patterson as “The Mushroom Murderer”, leave the impression that she really did like killing fungi. But an absolute monster must be found, and the press hounds duly found it. Papers like the Herald Sun preferred the old Rupert Murdoch tactic: till the soil to surface level to find requisite dirt. According to a grimy bit of reporting from that most distinguished of Melbourne rags, “the callous murderer, whose maiden name was Scutter before marrying Simon Patterson in 2007, was secretly dubbed ‘Scutter the Nutter’ among her training group.” The Australian was in a didactic mood, unhappy that the judge did not make it even more obvious that a crime, committed by a woman involving poison and “not a gun or a knife”, was equally grave.

To complete the matter was an aggrieved home cook, Nagi Maehashi, who also rode the wave of publicity by expressing sadness that her recipe had become a lethal weapon. (Presumably, Maehashi did not have lethal mushrooms in her original recipe, but precision slides in publicity.)  Overcome with false modesty in this glare of publicity, Maehashi did not wish to take interviews, but felt her misused work deserved a statement.  “It is, of course, upsetting to learn that one of my recipes – possibly the one I’ve spent more hours perfecting than any other – something I created to bring joy and happiness, is entangled in a tragic situation,” she moaned on Instagram. Those familiar with Maehashi will note her tendency to megalomania in the kitchen, especially given recipes that have been created long before she turned to knife and spatula.

The ones forgotten will be those victims who died excruciatingly before their loved ones in a richly sadistic exercise. At the end of it all, the entire ensemble of babblers, hucksters, and chancers so utterly obsessed with what took place in Leongatha should thank Patterson. Her murders have excited, enthralled, and given people purpose. She will start conversations, fill pockets, extend careers, and, if we are to believe some recent reporting, make meals for her fellow inmates in prison.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

“DRC authorities should have never detained Willy-Albert Kande or questioned Marcelin Mwananteba, Don Kubutana, and Laurent Ngala, and must end their efforts to intimidate the press over coverage of matters of public interest,” said CPJ’s Africa Regional Director Angela Quintal.

Local media reported that stadium manager Dadou Ethambe lodged a complaint against RTNC after the state-run outlet’s June 8 broadcast of the complex littered with trash and Kande raised concerns on air about the stadium’s conditions ahead of hosting a 2026 World Cup qualifying match. 

Police officers summoned and detained Kande and Mwananteba at a Kinshasa station on June 9 and questioned them about their reporting before releasing Mwananteba the same day and transferring Kande to the office of the National Cyberdefense Council (CNC), an intelligence service of the presidency, according to media reports and an RTNC journalist with knowledge of the case who spoke with CPJ on condition of anonymity.

According to those sources, Kande was accused of denigrating the stadium in a way that promoted Kamalondo Stadium in the south-eastern city of Lubumbashi, which is owned by Tout Puissant Mazembe, the local football team managed by opposition politician Moïse Katumbi.

On Thursday, June 11, authorities additionally arrested RTNC cameraperson Kubutana and reporter Ngala, who filmed the conditions at the stadium and took them to the CNC offices, according to the same RTNC journalist and a post on X by a local reporter. Kande, Ngala, and Kubutana were released later that day evening following the intervention of minister of sports and leisure Didier Budimbu Ntubuanga and the chief of staff for the minister of communication and media, Nicolas Liyanza.

CPJ’s calls to Budimbu and Ethambe received no responses. A WhatsApp message to Ethambe also went unanswered.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

The Papua New Guinea government wants to have everyone on their National Identity (NID) card system by the country’s 50th anniversary on 16 September 2025.

While the government has been struggling to set up the NID programme for more than 10 years, in January the Prime Minister, James Marape, announced they aimed to have 100 percent of Papua New Guineans signed up by September 16.

However, an academic with the University of PNG, working in conjunction with the Australian National University, Andrew Anton Mako, said there was no chance the government could achieve this goal.

• READ MORE: Other PNG identity card reports

Anton Mako spoke with RNZ Pacific senior journalist Don Wiseman:

ANDREW ANTON MAKO: The NID programme was established in November 2014, so it’s 10 years now. I wouldn’t know the mechanics of the delay, why it has taken this long for the project to not deliver on the outcomes, but I can say a lot of money has been invested into the programme.

By the end of this year, the national government would have spent about 500 million kina (over NZ$211 million). That’s a lot of money to be spent on a particular project, and then it would have only registered about 30 to 40 percent of the total population. So there’s a serious issue there. The project has failed to deliver.

DON WISEMAN: Come back to that in a moment. But why does the government think that a national ID card is so important?

AAM: It’s got some usefulness to achieve. If it was well established and well implemented, it would address a number of issues. For example, on doing business and a form of identity that will help people to do business, to apply for jobs in Papua New Guinea or elsewhere, and all that. I believe it has got merit towards it, but I think just that it has not been implemented properly.

DW: Does the population like the idea?

AAM: I think generally when it started, people were on board. But when it got delayed, you see a lot of people venting frustration on the NID Facebook page. I think [it’s] popularity has actually fallen over the years.

DW: It’s money that could go into a whole lot of other, perhaps, more important things?

AAM: Exactly, there’s pressing issues for the country, in terms of law and order, health and education. Those important sectors have actually fallen over the years. So that 500 million kina would have been better spent.

DW: So now the government wants the entire country within this system by September 16, and they’re not going to get anywhere near it. They must have realised they wouldn’t get anywhere near it when the Prime Minister made that statement. Surely?

AAM: It’s not possible. The numbers do not add up. They’ve spent more than 460 million kina over the last 10 years or so, and they’ve only registered 36 percent of the total — 3.3 million people. And then of the 3.3 million people, they’ve only issued an ID card to about 30 to 40 perCent of them . . .

DW: 30 to 40 percent of those who have already signed up. So it’s what, 10 percent of the country?

AAM: That’s right, about 1.2 million people have been issued an ID card, including a duplicate card. It is not possible to register the entire country, the rest of the country, in just six, seven or eight months.

DW: It’s not the first time that the government has come out with what is effectively like a wish list without fully backing it, financially?

AAM: That’s right. The ambitions that the government and the Prime Minister, their intentions are good, but there is no effective strategy how to get there.

The resources that are needed to be allocated. It’s just not possible to realise the the end results. For example, the Prime Minister and his government promised that by this year, we would stop importing rice. That was a promise that was made in 2019, so the thing is that the government has not clearly laid out a plan as to how the country will realise that outcome by this year.

If you are going to promise something, then you have to deliver on it. You have to deliver on the ambitions. Then you have to set up a proper game plan and proper indicators and things like this.

I think that’s the issue, that you have promised something [and] you must deliver. But you must chart out a proper pathway to deliver that.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Last week, New Caledonia was visited by France’s new Overseas Minister, François Buffet, offering a more conciliatory position by Paris.

This week, the territory, torn apart by violent riots, is to receive a Pacific Islands Forum fact-finding mission comprised of four prime ministers.

New Caledonia has been riven with violence and destruction for much of the past five months, resulting in 13 deaths and countless cases of arson.

• READ MORE: Buffet appeals for dialogue as he ends New Caledonia visit
• Other Kanaky New Caledonia reports

Islands Business journalist Nic Maclellan is back there for the first time since the rioting began on May 13 and RNZ Pacific asked for his first impressions.

Nic Maclellan: Day by day, things are very calm. It’s been a beautiful weekend, and there were people at the beach in the southern suburbs of Nouméa. People are going about their daily business. And on the surface, you don’t really notice that there’s been months of clashes between Kanak protesters and French security forces.

But every now and then, you stumble across a site that reminds you that this crisis is still, in many ways, unresolved. As you leave Tontouta Airport, the main gateway to the islands, for example, the airport buildings are surrounded by razor wire.

The French High Commission, which has a very high grill, is also topped with razor wire. It’s little things like that that remind you, that despite the removal of barricades which have dotted both Noumea and the main island for months, there are still underlying tensions that are unresolved.

And all of this comes at a time of enormous economic crisis, with key industries like tourism and nickel badly affected by months of dispute. Thousands of people either lost their jobs, or on part-time employment, and uncertainty about what capacity the French government brings from Paris to resolve long standing problems.

Don Wiseman: Well, New Caledonia is looking for a lot of money in grant form. Is it going to get it?

NMac: With, people I’ve spoken to in the last few days and with statements from major political parties, there’s enormous concern that political leaders in France don’t understand the depth of the crisis here; political, cultural, economic. President Macron, after losing the European Parliament elections, then seeing significant problems during the National Assembly elections that he called the snap votes, finds that there’s no governing majority in the French Parliament.

It took 51 days to appoint a new prime minister, another few weeks to appoint a government, and although France’s Overseas Minister Francois Noel Buffet visited last week, made a number of pledges, which were welcomed, there was sharp criticism, particularly from anti-independence leaders, from the so called loyalists, that France hadn’t recognised the enormity of what’s happened, and to translate that into financial commitments.

The Congress of New Caledonia passed a bipartisan, or all party proposal, for significant funding over the next five years, amounting to almost 4 billion euros, a vast sum, but money required to rebuild shattered economic institutions and restore public institutions that were damaged during months of riots and arson, is not there.

France faces, in Metropolitan France, a major fiscal crisis. The current Prime Minister Michel Barnier announced they cut $250 million out of funding for overseas territories. There’s a lot of work going on across the political spectrum, from politicians in New Caledonia, trying to make Paris understand that this is significant.

DW: Does Paris understand what happened in New Caledonia back in the 1980s?

NMac: Some do. I think there’s a real problem, though, that there’s a consistency of French policy that is reluctant to engage with France’s responsibilities as what the United Nations calls it, “administering power of a non-self-governing territory”.

You know, it’s a French colony. The Noumea Accord said that there should be a transition towards a new political status, and that situation is unresolved. Just this morning (Tuesday), I attended the session of the Congress of New Caledonia, which voted in majority that the provincial elections should be delayed until late next year, late 2025.

The aim would be to give time for the French State and both supporters and opponents of independence to meet to talk out a new political statute to replace the 1998 Noumea Accord. However, it’s clear from different perspectives that have been expressed in the Congress that there’s not a meeting of minds about the way forward. And key independence parties in the umbrella coalition, the FLNKS make it clear that they only see a comprehensive agreement possible if there’s a pathway forward towards sovereignty, even with a period of inter-dependence with France and over time to be negotiated.

The loyalists believe that that’s not a priority, that economic reconstruction is the priority, and a talk of sovereignty at this time is inappropriate. So, there’s a long way to go before the French can bring people together around the negotiating table, and that will play out in coming weeks.

DW: The new Overseas Minister seems to have taken a very conciliatory approach. That must be helpful.

NMac: For months and months, the FLNKS said that they were willing to discuss electoral reforms, opening up the voting rolls for the local political institutions to more French nationals, particularly New Caledonian-born citizens, but that it had to be part of a comprehensive, overarching agreement.

The very fact that President Macron tried to force key independence parties, particularly the largest, Union Caledoniénne, to the negotiating table by unilaterally trying to push through changes to these voting rules triggered the crisis that began on the 13th of May.

After five months of terrible destruction of schools, of hospitals, thousands of people, literally leaving New Caledonia, Macron has realised that you can’t push this through by force. As you say, Overseas Minister Buffet had a more conciliatory tone. He reconfirmed that the controversial reforms to the electoral laws have been abandoned. Doesn’t mean they won’t come back up in discussions in the future, but we’re back at square one in many ways, and yet there’s been five months of really terrible conflict between supporters and opponents of independence.

The fact that this is unresolved is shown by the reality that the French High Commissioner has announced that the overnight curfew is extended until early November, that the French police and security forces that have been deployed here, more than 6000 gendarmes, riot squads backed by armoured cars, helicopters and more, will be held until at least the end of the year.

This crisis is unresolved, and I think as Pacific leaders arrive this week, they’ll have to look beyond the surface calm to realise that there are many issues that still have to play out in the months to come.

DW: So with this Forum visit, how free will these people be to move around to make their own assessments?

NMac: I sense that there’s a tension between the government of New Caledonia and the French authorities about the purpose of this visit. In the past, French diplomats have suggested that the Forum is welcome to come, to condemn violence, to address the question of reconstruction and so on.

But I sense a reluctance to address issues around France’s responsibility for decolonisation, at the same time, key members of the delegation, such as Prime Minister Manele of Solomon Islands, Prime Minister Rabuka, have strong contacts through the Melanesian Spearhead Group, with members of the FLNKS and the broader political networks here. To that extent, there’ll be informal as well as formal dialogue. As the Forum members hit the ground after a long delay to their mission.

DW: There have been in the past, Forum groups that have gone to investigate various situations, and they’ve tended to take a very superficial view of everything that’s going on.

NMac: I think there are examples where the Forum missions have been very important. For example, in 2021 at the time of the third referendum on self-determination, the one rushed through by the French State in the middle of the covid pandemic, a delegation led by Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, a former Fiji Foreign Minister, with then Secretary-General of the Forum, Henry Puna, they wrote a very strong report criticising the legitimacy and credibility of that vote, because the vast majority of independence supporters, particularly indigenous Kanaks, didn’t turn out for the vote.

France claims it’s a strong no vote, but the Forum report, which most people haven’t read, actually questions the legitimacy of this politically. The very fact that four prime ministers are coming, not diplomats, not ministers, not just officials, but four prime ministers of Forum member countries, shows that this is an important moment for regional engagement.

Right from the beginning of the crisis, the then chair of the Forum, Mark Brown, who’ll be on the delegation, talked about the need for the Forum to create a neutral space for dialogue, for talanoa, to resolve long standing differences.

The very presence of them, although it hasn’t had much publicity here so far, will be a sign that this is not an internal matter for France, but in fact a matter of regional and international attention.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Photo by NIPYATA!

When last we checked in on Trump’s new media company, which has the full name of Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) and trades on Nasdaq under the monogrammatic ticket symbol DJT, the shares had gone public at around $60 a share, spiked close to $80 (giving the company a $10 billion valuation), and then—to use a Wall Street cliché—“consolidated” closer to $40 a share.

The post Wall Street Don Deals More Liar’s Poker appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Matthew Stevenson.

In the solemn aftermath of the Parkland school massacre in 2018, charges were brought against school resource officer Scot Peterson, alleging that he had failed to confront the gunman. Had he been more directly confrontational, investigators concluded that some of the 17 lives lost on the day of the shooting could have been saved. Peterson was publicly shamed by onlooking officials, including then President Donald Trump who labeled him a coward. He was tried for negligence and perjury, but was found innocent of the charges brought against him.

It’s now clear that in 2021, had the parents of a deranged teen been more responsible, and had Oxford High School officials been more observant, the murder of four students and the injuries to six others would likely have been averted.

In 2022, 19 young students and 2 teachers were killed at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas by an 18-year-old gunman. After the massacre, it appeared obvious to investigators that proper protocol had not been followed. Had responders reacted with what was thought to be a previously established strategy, surely some lives would have been saved. Much of the blame for system breakdown fell upon Pete Arredondo, the school district police chief. Similar to the blame levied on Scot Peterson at Parkland, Arredondo received the brunt of public condemnation for what appeared to be his hesitant and indecisive action.

The violent shootings in our schools unfold in chaotic minutes. In their aftermath, investigators review the disasters in quiet settings void of gunshots, pressured by calendars rather than clocks. The Justice Department spent 11 months putting together a 600-page study showing how the tragedy at Robb Elementary School could better have been handled. With ample time, at comfortable desks, examiners were able to peruse every facet of the 90-minute ordeal from every possible angle. Like the conclusion made earlier by Columbine examiners, the Justice Department determined that a quicker, more forceful, and confrontational approach would most likely have saved some lives at Uvalde.

There were 886 school shootings (383 deaths, 805 injuries) between the years 2000 and 2021, and of course more shootings and casualties have occurred since then. Had each emergency been handled perfectly, some of those casualties would have been avoided. But in the heat of the moment, how often is chaos handled perfectly? And what if it is? How many fewer children will then die? A perfect response doesn’t ensure a no-casualty result, it simply means that perhaps fewer children will be killed or maimed compared to a less-than-perfect response.

It’s almost as if we are tilting at windmills when assigning blame for the tragedies that befall our schools. We spend days or even months examining police and faculty response during a school shooting to determine who screwed up the most. The blame is then piled on to responders like Peterson and Arredondo for their less-than-perfect reaction to chaos. Yes, if responders react perfectly, some lives might be saved, but the imperfect responders we tilt at are windmills and not the real foe. Attacking windmills provides the appearance of doing something rather than nothing, but if we truly wish to save children rather than merely projecting blame, the real foe needs to be confronted.

There are several recognized categories of murder and manslaughter: first degree murder, second degree murder, felony murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and so on. The various categories address intent and culpability. A shooter who enters a school and kills children and teachers with a gun will be charged (if still alive) with some form of murder. Likewise, someone who aids or abets a shooter will likely face charges.

The parents of Ethan Crumbley, the shooter at Oxford High School, have been charged with involuntary manslaughter because they irresponsibly provided his weapon and failed to recognize or react to their son’s warning signs. Some Oxford parents are also urging that criminal charges be brought against school officials for gross negligence. Obviously, the Crumbly parents should have possessed better judgment and acted more responsibly; obviously, Oxford school officials should have been more observant, but are they the real foe? Isn’t the real foe those who have made Oxford, Uvalde, Parkland, and all of our school massacres so statistically foreseeable, but nearly impossible to prevent? Isn’t the real foe those who knowingly perpetuate the conditions that ensure evermore school massacres in our future?

In the 8 years since Greg Abbott became governor of Texas, the state has suffered 7 mass shootings. Rather than proposing or supporting meaningful firearm restrictions that would make mass shootings less likely, Abbott has done just the opposite. The governor has pleased the NRA and its constituency by signing 22 bills that will reduce or eliminate gun restrictions in Texas. Greg Abbott didn’t sign the bills in a chaotic setting where his better judgment might have been impinged. He calmly signed his name in front of cameras rather than guns, and was fully aware of the ramifications. He knew that while his signatures would ensure NRA based political support, the signings would also make future mass shootings more likely. Perhaps in his mind he is able to portray himself as guilt-free; it’s only the crazed shooters who are responsible for killing school kids – how could anyone hold him responsible? He won’t be the one holding the gun that spews bullets; he’s only just making it available. Abbott does not yet know the names of all the children that will be shot due to his signing, but he will learn them by and by. When he does, the Governor will publicly grieve over the unfathomable tragedy and pompously pray for both the victims and their families.

Ethan Crumbley’s parents face involuntary manslaughter charges because they should have foreseen what would happen and did nothing to stop it. Governor Abbott can foresee what will happen due to his actions, but will face no charges. The mayhem that again unfolds will be down the road and not directly tied to his actions. It will take bad parenting or a lone crazed gunman enabled by the governor’s signature to come along and deliver the massacre. In its aftermath, an investigation will likely take place to determine if better police response would have saved some lives. The governor will probably demand it.

Governor Abbott and Texas are not lone wolves. 27 states have enacted permitless-carry laws that help proliferate the presence of guns in nearly all public places. 16 states have declared themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuary States” to block or restrain attempts at gun-control measures. Politicians all across the nation are pressured or supported by gun-rights groups such as The National Rifle Association (NRA), Gun Owners of America (GOA), The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA). The persuasive force they wield over politicians comes not through membership dues alone; more than half of the NRA’s revenue comes directly from gun industry companies.

Not so long ago, through seductive advertising, the tobacco industry convinced nearly half of the adult U.S. population that smoking was both glamorous and healthy. Today, the gun industry promotes its product in much the same way: gun ownership is boldly attractive and a life-sustaining necessity (there’s a difference though; cigarettes are most apt to kill the user; guns are most apt to kill someone else). As Americans buy into the gun hype, their voting power adds to the industry’s persuasive power with law-makers and makes meaningful gun regulation less and less likely.

With every school massacre, the anguish and heartache are real to the parents and those most close to the victims, but for the rest of us … maybe not so much. The grieving masks are good for public show and self-exoneration, but hide our true priorities: the gun industry values money more than the lives of children; lawmakers value votes more than the lives of children; gun owners value the warm feeling of holding a deadly firearm more than the lives of children. Were it otherwise, they (and we) would do what needs to be done to curtail the endless carnage.

After a shooting, it’s convenient to challenge the windmills. We look for a Peterson, an Arredondo, or even a Crumbley on which to affix some blame. If only our police and law-enforcement officials had reacted to chaos like the heroes in a movie, a few more of our children would have been saved. If only the parenting had been perfect and school officials more observant, a shooting might have been averted (or maybe just delayed). If police, parents, and school officials always reacted perfectly when facing danger and uncertainty, it would be a good thing; some lives would be saved amidst the chaos. But the responders are never always perfect, they can’t save all the lives, and they are not the source of the killings.

It’s the guns; the proliferation of guns; the proliferation of guns designed to kill human beings. It’s the ease of obtaining and carrying a gun (even a gun specifically designed to kill a lot of humans in a short amount of time) that turns our schools and neighborhoods into killing fields. The gun industry promotes their deadly merchandise as if it were an attractive, patriotic, and life-enhancing necessity. Too many American citizens have found purpose in the hype. Too many American lawmakers have found careers through the hype. Years ago, when citizens and politicians challenged the tobacco industry, meaningful rules and regulations were incorporated that have actually prolonged the lives of millions of Americans. If we truly wish to minimize the senseless shooting deaths and injuries that now plague our nation, we need to convince our lawmakers that gun proliferation is a priority issue; they need to find that our continued support (vote) is tied to meaningful gun regulation. The power of an electoral vote is the only thing potentially more powerful than an industry’s financial and lobbying power. If it’s not wielded effectively, the gun industry and our politicians will continue to comfortably enable school and neighborhood massacres for nothing more than money and political security. If we surrender our votes to those beholding to the gun industry, we are just as guilty as Greg Abbott; if we cast our votes in support of the gun industry, we are just as responsible as the parents of Ethan Crumbley. Rather than seeing meaningful legislation from our lawmakers that could prevent a tragedy, we will continue doing studies after each rampage to determine if a more perfect law-enforcement response could have saved just a few more lives. The studies will serve their purpose. We’ll find someone else to blame for something, and nothing much will change.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Vern Loomis.

In the solemn aftermath of the Parkland school massacre in 2018, charges were brought against school resource officer Scot Peterson, alleging that he had failed to confront the gunman. Had he been more directly confrontational, investigators concluded that some of the 17 lives lost on the day of the shooting could have been saved. Peterson was publicly shamed by onlooking officials, including then President Donald Trump who labeled him a coward. He was tried for negligence and perjury, but was found innocent of the charges brought against him.

It’s now clear that in 2021, had the parents of a deranged teen been more responsible, and had Oxford High School officials been more observant, the murder of four students and the injuries to six others would likely have been averted.

In 2022, 19 young students and 2 teachers were killed at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas by an 18-year-old gunman. After the massacre, it appeared obvious to investigators that proper protocol had not been followed. Had responders reacted with what was thought to be a previously established strategy, surely some lives would have been saved. Much of the blame for system breakdown fell upon Pete Arredondo, the school district police chief. Similar to the blame levied on Scot Peterson at Parkland, Arredondo received the brunt of public condemnation for what appeared to be his hesitant and indecisive action.

The violent shootings in our schools unfold in chaotic minutes. In their aftermath, investigators review the disasters in quiet settings void of gunshots, pressured by calendars rather than clocks. The Justice Department spent 11 months putting together a 600-page study showing how the tragedy at Robb Elementary School could better have been handled. With ample time, at comfortable desks, examiners were able to peruse every facet of the 90-minute ordeal from every possible angle. Like the conclusion made earlier by Columbine examiners, the Justice Department determined that a quicker, more forceful, and confrontational approach would most likely have saved some lives at Uvalde.

There were 886 school shootings (383 deaths, 805 injuries) between the years 2000 and 2021, and of course more shootings and casualties have occurred since then. Had each emergency been handled perfectly, some of those casualties would have been avoided. But in the heat of the moment, how often is chaos handled perfectly? And what if it is? How many fewer children will then die? A perfect response doesn’t ensure a no-casualty result, it simply means that perhaps fewer children will be killed or maimed compared to a less-than-perfect response.

It’s almost as if we are tilting at windmills when assigning blame for the tragedies that befall our schools. We spend days or even months examining police and faculty response during a school shooting to determine who screwed up the most. The blame is then piled on to responders like Peterson and Arredondo for their less-than-perfect reaction to chaos. Yes, if responders react perfectly, some lives might be saved, but the imperfect responders we tilt at are windmills and not the real foe. Attacking windmills provides the appearance of doing something rather than nothing, but if we truly wish to save children rather than merely projecting blame, the real foe needs to be confronted.

There are several recognized categories of murder and manslaughter: first degree murder, second degree murder, felony murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and so on. The various categories address intent and culpability. A shooter who enters a school and kills children and teachers with a gun will be charged (if still alive) with some form of murder. Likewise, someone who aids or abets a shooter will likely face charges.

The parents of Ethan Crumbley, the shooter at Oxford High School, have been charged with involuntary manslaughter because they irresponsibly provided his weapon and failed to recognize or react to their son’s warning signs. Some Oxford parents are also urging that criminal charges be brought against school officials for gross negligence. Obviously, the Crumbly parents should have possessed better judgment and acted more responsibly; obviously, Oxford school officials should have been more observant, but are they the real foe? Isn’t the real foe those who have made Oxford, Uvalde, Parkland, and all of our school massacres so statistically foreseeable, but nearly impossible to prevent? Isn’t the real foe those who knowingly perpetuate the conditions that ensure evermore school massacres in our future?

In the 8 years since Greg Abbott became governor of Texas, the state has suffered 7 mass shootings. Rather than proposing or supporting meaningful firearm restrictions that would make mass shootings less likely, Abbott has done just the opposite. The governor has pleased the NRA and its constituency by signing 22 bills that will reduce or eliminate gun restrictions in Texas. Greg Abbott didn’t sign the bills in a chaotic setting where his better judgment might have been impinged. He calmly signed his name in front of cameras rather than guns, and was fully aware of the ramifications. He knew that while his signatures would ensure NRA based political support, the signings would also make future mass shootings more likely. Perhaps in his mind he is able to portray himself as guilt-free; it’s only the crazed shooters who are responsible for killing school kids – how could anyone hold him responsible? He won’t be the one holding the gun that spews bullets; he’s only just making it available. Abbott does not yet know the names of all the children that will be shot due to his signing, but he will learn them by and by. When he does, the Governor will publicly grieve over the unfathomable tragedy and pompously pray for both the victims and their families.

Ethan Crumbley’s parents face involuntary manslaughter charges because they should have foreseen what would happen and did nothing to stop it. Governor Abbott can foresee what will happen due to his actions, but will face no charges. The mayhem that again unfolds will be down the road and not directly tied to his actions. It will take bad parenting or a lone crazed gunman enabled by the governor’s signature to come along and deliver the massacre. In its aftermath, an investigation will likely take place to determine if better police response would have saved some lives. The governor will probably demand it.

Governor Abbott and Texas are not lone wolves. 27 states have enacted permitless-carry laws that help proliferate the presence of guns in nearly all public places. 16 states have declared themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuary States” to block or restrain attempts at gun-control measures. Politicians all across the nation are pressured or supported by gun-rights groups such as The National Rifle Association (NRA), Gun Owners of America (GOA), The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA). The persuasive force they wield over politicians comes not through membership dues alone; more than half of the NRA’s revenue comes directly from gun industry companies.

Not so long ago, through seductive advertising, the tobacco industry convinced nearly half of the adult U.S. population that smoking was both glamorous and healthy. Today, the gun industry promotes its product in much the same way: gun ownership is boldly attractive and a life-sustaining necessity (there’s a difference though; cigarettes are most apt to kill the user; guns are most apt to kill someone else). As Americans buy into the gun hype, their voting power adds to the industry’s persuasive power with law-makers and makes meaningful gun regulation less and less likely.

With every school massacre, the anguish and heartache are real to the parents and those most close to the victims, but for the rest of us … maybe not so much. The grieving masks are good for public show and self-exoneration, but hide our true priorities: the gun industry values money more than the lives of children; lawmakers value votes more than the lives of children; gun owners value the warm feeling of holding a deadly firearm more than the lives of children. Were it otherwise, they (and we) would do what needs to be done to curtail the endless carnage.

After a shooting, it’s convenient to challenge the windmills. We look for a Peterson, an Arredondo, or even a Crumbley on which to affix some blame. If only our police and law-enforcement officials had reacted to chaos like the heroes in a movie, a few more of our children would have been saved. If only the parenting had been perfect and school officials more observant, a shooting might have been averted (or maybe just delayed). If police, parents, and school officials always reacted perfectly when facing danger and uncertainty, it would be a good thing; some lives would be saved amidst the chaos. But the responders are never always perfect, they can’t save all the lives, and they are not the source of the killings.

It’s the guns; the proliferation of guns; the proliferation of guns designed to kill human beings. It’s the ease of obtaining and carrying a gun (even a gun specifically designed to kill a lot of humans in a short amount of time) that turns our schools and neighborhoods into killing fields. The gun industry promotes their deadly merchandise as if it were an attractive, patriotic, and life-enhancing necessity. Too many American citizens have found purpose in the hype. Too many American lawmakers have found careers through the hype. Years ago, when citizens and politicians challenged the tobacco industry, meaningful rules and regulations were incorporated that have actually prolonged the lives of millions of Americans. If we truly wish to minimize the senseless shooting deaths and injuries that now plague our nation, we need to convince our lawmakers that gun proliferation is a priority issue; they need to find that our continued support (vote) is tied to meaningful gun regulation. The power of an electoral vote is the only thing potentially more powerful than an industry’s financial and lobbying power. If it’s not wielded effectively, the gun industry and our politicians will continue to comfortably enable school and neighborhood massacres for nothing more than money and political security. If we surrender our votes to those beholding to the gun industry, we are just as guilty as Greg Abbott; if we cast our votes in support of the gun industry, we are just as responsible as the parents of Ethan Crumbley. Rather than seeing meaningful legislation from our lawmakers that could prevent a tragedy, we will continue doing studies after each rampage to determine if a more perfect law-enforcement response could have saved just a few more lives. The studies will serve their purpose. We’ll find someone else to blame for something, and nothing much will change.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Vern Loomis.

Police arrested Digmon and Fletcher on October 27 on charges of disclosing leaked information, according to a Facebook post by local newspaper Atmore News, and a report by local newspaper The Atmore Advance. Their arrests followed an October 25 story by Fletcher about an investigation into the local Board of Education’s alleged mishandling of COVID relief funds.

Digmon, who is also a member of the same Board of Education, and Fletcher were held for several hours at the county detention center in Brewton, Alabama, before they were released on a $10,000 bail each.

The charge of revealing grand jury secrets is a felony under Alabama Criminal Code Section 12-16-215, according to court documents reviewed by CPJ, and carries a penalty of between one to three years imprisonment and a fine of up to $5,000.

“CPJ is outraged by the arrest of Atmore News publisher Sherry Digmon and reporter Don Fletcher and calls on local authorities to immediately drop all charges against them. They should not be prosecuted for simply doing their jobs and covering a matter of local interest, such as the allocation of school board funds,” said Katherine Jacobsen, CPJ’s U.S. and Canada program coordinator. “Journalists play a crucial role in their local communities. Arresting them creates a chilling effect and is a gross misuse of taxpayer funds.”

Digmon’s phone and the phone of a school board member were seized by sheriff’s deputies who also served search warrants against the two after they voted against a new contract for the county’s superintendent of education, according to The Atmore News Facebook post.

Escambia County District Attorney Stephen Billy told the Atmore Advance that Digmon and Fletcher were arrested for breaking the law and publishing protected jury information.

When reached by phone, Billy’s office told CPJ that he was in court and not available for immediate comment.

Digmon and Fletcher’s legal representation, Earnest White, declined to comment.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

In the name of "protecting future generations from potentially devastating consequences," a bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday introduced legislation meant to prevent artificial intelligence from launching nuclear weapons without meaningful human control.

The Block Nuclear Launch by Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Act—introduced by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Reps. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Don Beyer (D-Va.), and Ken Buck (R-Colo.)—asserts that "any decision to launch a nuclear weapon should not be made" by AI.

The proposed legislation acknowledges that the Pentagon's 2022 Nuclear Posture Review states that current U.S. policy is to "maintain a human 'in the loop' for all actions critical to informing and executing decisions by the president to initiate and terminate nuclear weapon employment."

The bill would codify that policy so that no federal funds could be used "to launch a nuclear weapon [or] select or engage targets for the purposes of launching" nukes.

"As we live in an increasingly digital age, we need to ensure that humans hold the power alone to command, control, and launch nuclear weapons—not robots," Markey asserted in a statement. "We need to keep humans in the loop on making life-or-death decisions to use deadly force, especially for our most dangerous weapons."

Buck argued that "while U.S. military use of AI can be appropriate for enhancing national security purposes, use of AI for deploying nuclear weapons without a human chain of command and control is reckless, dangerous, and should be prohibited."

According to the 2023 AI Index Report—an annual assessment published earlier this month by the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence—36% of surveyed AI experts worry about the possibility that automated systems "could cause nuclear-level catastrophe."

"Use of AI for deploying nuclear weapons without a human chain of command and control is reckless, dangerous, and should be prohibited."

The report followed a February assessment by the Arms Control Association, an advocacy group, that AI and other emerging technologies including lethal autonomous weapons systems and hypersonic missiles pose a potentially existential threat that underscores the need for measures to slow the pace of weaponization.

"While we all try to grapple with the pace at which AI is accelerating, the future of AI and its role in society remains unclear," Lieu said in a statement introducing the new bill.

"It is our job as members of Congress to have responsible foresight when it comes to protecting future generations from potentially devastating consequences," he continued. "That's why I'm pleased to introduce the bipartisan, bicameral Block Nuclear Launch by Autonomous AI Act, which will ensure that no matter what happens in the future, a human being has control over the employment of a nuclear weapon—not a robot."

"AI can never be a substitute for human judgment when it comes to launching nuclear weapons," Lieu added.

While dozens of countries support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, none of the world's nine nuclear powers, including the United States, have signed on, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine has reawakened fears of nuclear conflict that were largely dormant since the Cold War.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Government watchdogs on Friday said former President Donald Trump has potentially placed himself in even more legal jeopardyafter he threatened violence if he's charged in a criminal case in New York.

Shortly after midnight on Friday, Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, that potentially "catastrophic" violence would result if he is indicted by a Manhattan grand jury.

"What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former president of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting president in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a crime, when it is known by all that NO crime has been committed, and also known that potential death and destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our country?" Trump said.

He also called Manhattan Attorney General Alvin Bragg "a degenerate psychopath that truly hates the USA."

Bragg's office has presented a grand jury with evidence related to alleged hush-money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign, years after the former president allegedly had a sexual relationship with Daniels.

Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, said in 2018 that he made a $130,000 payment to Daniels. He was reimbursed in 2017 by the Trump Organization.

The former president has made several public statements about the case against him in recent days, saying last weekend that he expected to be indicted on Tuesday and calling for a "protest" in New York, and posting an image in social media on Thursday showing Trump holding a baseball bat next to Bragg's head.

His call for "death and destruction" is his most explicit statement about potential violence, said critics including government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

"He's not being subtle, he's threatening prosecutors with violence... Trump got his supporters to attack the government once," said CREW, referring to Trump's encouragement of his supporters to attend the rally at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 that turned into a violent insurrection aimed at overturning his election loss. "He's making it clear that if he's arrested, he's going to try to do it again."

The group added that Trump's threats of violence "are admissible in court."

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) called on Republicans to clearly "condemn and oppose" Trump's calls for violence, to avoid another violent uprising in his defense.

"Donald Trump's incitement of violence is more direct, explicit, dangerous now than it was before January 6th," said Beyer. "Republican leaders cannot ignore this or wish it away."

According toThe Washington Post, the grand jury is next scheduled to meet on Monday at the earliest.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

Government watchdogs on Friday said former President Donald Trump has potentially placed himself in even more legal jeopardyafter he threatened violence if he's charged in a criminal case in New York.

Shortly after midnight on Friday, Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, that potentially "catastrophic" violence would result if he is indicted by a Manhattan grand jury.

"What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former president of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting president in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a crime, when it is known by all that NO crime has been committed, and also known that potential death and destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our country?" Trump said.

He also called Manhattan Attorney General Alvin Bragg "a degenerate psychopath that truly hates the USA."

Bragg's office has presented a grand jury with evidence related to alleged hush-money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign, years after the former president allegedly had a sexual relationship with Daniels.

Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, said in 2018 that he made a $130,000 payment to Daniels. He was reimbursed in 2017 by the Trump Organization.

The former president has made several public statements about the case against him in recent days, saying last weekend that he expected to be indicted on Tuesday and calling for a "protest" in New York, and posting an image in social media on Thursday showing Trump holding a baseball bat next to Bragg's head.

His call for "death and destruction" is his most explicit statement about potential violence, said critics including government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

"He's not being subtle, he's threatening prosecutors with violence... Trump got his supporters to attack the government once," said CREW, referring to Trump's encouragement of his supporters to attend the rally at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 that turned into a violent insurrection aimed at overturning his election loss. "He's making it clear that if he's arrested, he's going to try to do it again."

The group added that Trump's threats of violence "are admissible in court."

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) called on Republicans to clearly "condemn and oppose" Trump's calls for violence, to avoid another violent uprising in his defense.

"Donald Trump's incitement of violence is more direct, explicit, dangerous now than it was before January 6th," said Beyer. "Republican leaders cannot ignore this or wish it away."

According toThe Washington Post, the grand jury is next scheduled to meet on Monday at the earliest.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

Congressional Democrats on Thursday forcefully called out their Republican colleagues for holding the economy hostage by refusing to raise the country's $31.4 trillion debt ceiling without major spending cuts, risking the first-ever U.S. default.

Democrats declined to even try to raise the nation's arbitrary and arguably unconstitutional borrowing limit while they still controlled both chambers of Congress during last year's lame-duck session, setting up the current fight. Because the ceiling has already been hit, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is now taking "extraordinary measures" to give lawmakers more time to act, but the deadline to do so looms, with a default possible as early as June, based on the latest federal estimates.

"This report shows that a Republican default crisis means real dollars coming out of American families' wallets and savings decimated."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) along with other key party members came together Thursday to unveil an alarming six-page Joint Economic Committee (JEC) Democratic staff report.

"This report shows that a Republican default crisis means real dollars coming out of American families' wallets and savings decimated. This is not a hypothetical exercise to the millions of Americans—including veterans and seniors—who rely on the United States government for benefits, pensions, and disability," Schumer said in a statement.

"House Republicans' approach is dangerous and destabilizing," he added. "Even the threat of a breach will raise costs on everything from car loans to mortgages. Republicans are gambling with Americans' savings, benefits, and lives, all to play a political game."

Specifically, according to the report, if the GOP forced a historic and "catastrophic" default:

• The average worker close to retirement could take a $20,000 hit to their retirement savings;
• Small business loans could go up $44 a month, costing about $2,500 more over the course of the loan;
• Debt-limit threats could weaken the dollar and push up prices for consumers;
• A typical new homeowner could see their monthly mortgage payment go up more than $150, costing them an extra $54,300 over the life of their loan;
• A family buying a new car could pay over $800 more if interest rates spike;
• Americans with private student loans could see their monthly payments rise by $23, costing them nearly $4,200 in total; and
• Families with credit card debt could see their monthly payments rise, making it harder for them to become debt-free.

"A decade ago credit rating agencies downgraded the U.S. credit rating after Republican debt limit brinkmanship, and it drove borrowing costs for the American people higher in a variety of ways," noted Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). "This Joint Economic Committee report quantifies what kind of damage regular people could see if that happens again, and it is very bad."

"This would affect everyone who borrows money, including the United States government, which would have to pay more in its borrowing costs," he explained. "In other words, Republican hostage-taking on the debt limit would actually increase the deficit."

Beyer, Schumer, and Jeffries were joined at the news conference Thursday by Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) as well as Sens. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), the JEC chairman-designate, who stressed that "the debt ceiling is not a bargaining chip."

While several of them slammed "MAGA Republican in the House," 71-year-old Moore chose to describe the GOP lawmakers whose actions are jeopardizing not only the U.S. but also the global economy another way.

"I have a great-granddaughter that falls out and rolls on the floor when she can't have her way. I tell her she needs to get up because she's not gonna get it," Moore said. "Republicans need to get up and stop holding our economy hostage."

"We are not going to devastate our seniors and our children, and we will not sabotage the world's standard credit rating," the congresswoman declared. "Republicans need to get up off the ground and raise the debt limit!"

Adding to concerns about the U.S. and global economies are recent bank turmoil and repeated interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve—which, along with Congress, is facing criticism for regulatory rollbacks that experts tie to the bank failures.

As Punchbowl Newsreported Wednesday:

Instead of expressing caution, senior GOP lawmakers are leaning into their plans to demand spending cuts in return for raising the nation's borrowing limit. The Republicans we spoke to doubled down, arguing the same factors that led to the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank necessitate urgency in reducing government spending.

"This is the best time to do it," House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) said of the debt limit fight. "That interest rate pressure that is creating some risk in the banking industry is a result of the inflation that has been induced by the massive amounts of spending."

[...]

Arrington's panel will play a central role in the Republican posture heading into negotiations with President Joe Biden. While House Republicans have yet to release their budget, GOP leaders have vowed to roll back spending to FY2022 levels. That would mean a cut of roughly $130 billion from last year's funding level. Democrats and the White House have assailed the plan as an attack on working families, seniors, and veterans, while Republicans insist the cuts are necessary to rein in inflation.

The Texas Republican said it "makes sense that when you have a debt ceiling negotiation," lawmakers would "reflect on the indebtedness of our country" and look to cut spending at the same time.

Punchbowl noted similar remarks this week from Reps. Carlos Gimenez (R-Fla.) and John Rose (R-Tenn.) along with GOP Conference Secretary Lisa McClain.

Biden introduced his budget blueprint for FY2024 earlier this month. Though progressives condemned the president's historically high request for military spending as "madness" they also praised his push for massive social investments as well as tax hikes targeting wealthy individuals and corporations.

Meanwhile, "House Republican leaders did not respond to multiple questions from USA TODAY about when the GOP budget would be ready," the newspaper reported Wednesday.

As USA TODAY detailed:

An initial proposal from the House Budget Committee includes cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, Biden's student debt cancellation, and funding for electric vehicles for the U.S. post office.

It also includes reinstating work requirements to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

A proposal from the House Freedom Caucus includes $131 billion in cuts for fiscal year 2024.

"Extreme MAGA House Republicans are showing us what they value: tax breaks for the rich," Biden said of the caucus' proposal. "They demand the biggest Medicare benefits cut in decades, ship jobs overseas, defund law enforcement, devastate our national and border security. It's a gut punch to the middle class."

As Liz Zelnick from the watchdog Accountable.US warned, "The MAGA extremists running the House fully intend to manufacture a disastrous default crisis by making demands they know to be nonstarters—like letting wealthy tax cheats and big polluters off the hook."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

Butler’s recent piece on the Lemon affair was published by Ms. Magazine, and her rejoinder to Lemon in USA Today.
Higdon’s latest op-ed with Huff on Russiagate was published numerous places, including as a Dispatch at Project Censored.

Notes:
Allison Butler teaches in the Department of Communications at the University of Massachusetts, and is Vice President of the Media Freedom Foundation, Project Censored’s parent organization, and co-author of The Media and Me. Nolan Higdon is a lecturer in education at the University of California Santa Cruz campus. He’s also the author of the book The Anatomy of Fake News and other works of media analysis.

Image by Thomas Breher from Pixabay

The post Analyzing Current Events Through a Critical Media Literacy Lens: Don Lemon’s Sexism/Ageism at CNN, the Sackler Dynasty, Russiagate Propaganda, and More appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Project Censored.

After Amazon on Friday confirmed plans to pause construction on its second headquarters near Washington, D.C., Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez expressed vindication over her 2018 opposition to the tech giant's initial plan to build part of HQ2 in New York City.

Following political leaders across the country engaging in what critics called "corporate bribery," offering Amazon tax breaks and other incentives to build in their communities, the company chose to split the project between Arlington, Virginia, and the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens. However, Amazon halted plans for the NYC campus in response to local backlash.

Among the opponents was Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who said in a series of tweets Friday, "In the end, we were right."

Slate politics writer Alexander Sammon on Friday expressed hope that Ocasio-Cortez, New York State Senate Deputy Leader Michael Gianaris (D-12), "and the small handful of Democratic politicians who had enough courage to stick their necks out and oppose this bullshit in 2018 take a nice, long victory lap today."

"This was not at all a safe position when they took it," Sammon said. "And it was thankless one—as is often the case, the consequences for the marks and corporate bootlickers who embraced [former CEO Jeff] Bezos and Amazon will be nonexistent."

In response to reporting by Bloomberg, which broke Friday's news, Gianaris tweeted that "maybe a multibillion-dollar subsidy for the biggest corporation in the world to build an office was a really bad idea after all."

Gianaris added in a statement that "Amazon's announcement shows once again that paying off a historically wealthy corporation with massive subsidies to make a single office siting decision is bad policy. It also demands we take a different approach to the use of public dollars that does not rely on providing scarce resources to those who actually need them least while continuing to shortchange the services that would actually help people's lives improve."

Amazon has nearly finished phase one of HQ2 construction, a pair of office towers, and plans to move employees into that development, Metropolitan Park, in June. However, phase two—PenPlace, set to be built across the street with three towers, a corporate conference center, and other features such as a garden—is now on hold indefinitely.

"We're always evaluating space plans to make sure they fit our business needs and to create a great experience for employees," John Schoettler, who leads Amazon's global real estate portfolio, told Bloomberg. "And since Met Park will have space to accommodate more than 14,000 employees, we've decided to shift the groundbreaking of PenPlace out a bit."

The move comes amid Amazon's biggest-ever wave of job cuts, impacting 18,000 people globally, and after CEO Andy Jassy last month announced the company would require most employees to return to the office at least three days per week come May.

"Our second headquarters has always been a multiyear project, and we remain committed to Arlington, Virginia, and the greater capital region—which includes investing in affordable housing, funding computer science education in schools across the region, and supporting dozens of local nonprofits," Schoettler added. "We appreciate the support of all our partners and neighbors, and look forward to continuing to work together in the years ahead."

Congressman Don Beyer (D-Va.) on Friday said that Amazon staff made similar assurances to him directly. He urged the Seattle-based company to "promptly update leaders and stakeholders about any new major changes in this project, which remains very important to the capital region."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

Higher Education Minister Don Polye has condemned a decision by the administration of the University of Papua New Guinea to treat a PNG-born and bred grade 12 school leaver as an “international” student.

Roselyn Alog, 19, whose parents are Filipinos, was born and raised in PNG.

On Monday, she was turned away from registering at the university by the School of Natural and Physical Sciences on the grounds that she is a Filipino by nationality.

• READ MORE: Other PNG education reports

She was asked to pay K19,638 (almost NZ$9000) and not K3115 (NZ$1400) as per the acceptance letter from UPNG.

Alog completed her grade 12 last year at the Paradise Private School and was selected through the National Online System to study under the SNPS programme.

“I have considered that those students who have come through PNG’s education system, regardless of nationality over the years, have a right to be given the same treatment as everyone else for enrolment,” Polye said.

“PNG is a member of the global community and our universities are institutions of learning for all international students who live within or live outside our shores.

Diverse students
“We are happy to see students of diverse nationalities and cultures live and study together as it’s part of learning.

“If a student had been paying school fees through the echelon of our formal education structure at the established school fees structure, then the same student is entitled to pay the same fee asked of through the formal process.

“A student should not be discriminated against. No foreign student will be made to pay more if such a student had been coming up [through] the formal PNG education system.

“Any errors made must be corrected immediately.”

Francis Hualupmomi, Secretary for the Department of Higher Education Research Science and Technology (HERST) which manages the TESAS (scholarship scheme), said no university had the right to take away the TESAS privilege awarded to a student.

A call from the scholarship division of the Department of HERST to the Post-Courier asked Roselyn Alog to visit their office to establish her citizenship status.

Phoebe Gwangilo is a PNG Post-Courier journalist. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

We speak with New Yorker staff writer Sue Halpern about the Senate race in New Hampshire, where she says far-right Republican nominee Donald Bolduc is running a “vigorous campaign” against the incumbent Democratic Senator Maggie Hassan and spreading conspiracy theories that some schoolchildren were using litter boxes. “If Maggie Hassan loses, the Democrats might well lose the Senate,” says Halpert, adding that New Hampshire is “a very swingy state” and the midterm outcomes there could surprise many people.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

On the eve of the US Pacific Islands Summit in Washington, a key ally in the region called off a scheduled negotiating session for a treaty Washington views as an essential hedge against China in the region.

The Marshall Islands and the United States negotiators were scheduled for the third round of talks this weekend to renew some expiring provisions of a Compact of Free Association when leaders in Majuro called it off, saying the lack of response from Washington on the country’s US nuclear weapons testing legacy meant there was no reason to meet.

Marshall Islands leaders have repeatedly said the continuing legacy of health, environmental and economic problems from 67 US nuclear tests from 1946-1958 must be satisfactorily addressed before they will agree to a new economic package with the US.

• LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: Don Wiseman speaks to Giff Johnson
• Other US nuclear tests reports

Washington sees the Compact treaties with the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau, which stretch across an ocean area larger than the continental US, as key to countering the expansion of China in the region.

“The unique security relationships established by the Compacts of Free Association have magnified the US power projection in the Indo-Pacific region, structured US defense planning and force posture, and contributed to essential defense capabilities,” said a new study released September 20 in Washington, DC by the United States Institute of Peace, “China’s Influence on the Freely Associated States of the Northern Pacific.”

China’s naval expansion is increasing the value of the US relationship with the freely associated states (FAS).

China’s blue water ambitions
China’s naval expansion is increasing the value of the US relationship with the freely associated states (FAS).

“The value of the buffer created by US strategic denial over FAS territorial seas is poised to increase as China seeks to make good on its blue water navy ambitions and to deepen its security relationships with Pacific nations,” said the report whose primary authors were Admiral (Ret.) Philip Davidson, Brigadier-General (Ret.) and David Stilwell, former US Congressman from Guam Dr Robert Underwood.

“As Washington seeks to limit the scope of Beijing’s influence in the Indo-Pacific in concert with regional partners, the US-FAS relationship functions as a key vehicle for reinforcing regional norms and democratic values.”

US and Marshall Islands negotiators have both said they hope for a speedy conclusion to the talks as the existing 20-year funding package expires on September 30, 2023. But the nuclear test legacy is the line in the sand for the Marshall Islands.

“The entire Compact Negotiation Committee agreed — don’t go,” said Parliament Speaker Kenneth Kedi, who represents Rongelap Atoll, which was contaminated with nuclear test fallout by the 1954 Bravo hydrogen bomb test at Bikini Atoll and other weapons tests.

“It is not prudent to spend over $100,000 for our delegation to travel to Washington with no written response to our proposal. We are negotiating in good faith. We submitted our proposal in writing.” But he said on Friday, “there has been no answer or counter proposal from the US.”

US and Marshall Islands officials had been aiming to sign a “memorandum of understanding” at the summit as an indication of progress in the discussions, but that now appears off the table.

US Pacific summit
Marshall Islands President David Kabua, who is currently in the US following a speech to the United Nations General Assembly Tuesday last week, is scheduled to participate in the White House-sponsored US Pacific Islands Summit on September 28-29.

Kabua, while affirming in his speech at the UN that the Marshall Islands has a “strong partnership” with the US, added: “It is vital that the legacy and contemporary challenges of nuclear testing be better addressed” (during negotiations on the Compact of Free Association). “The exposure of our people and land has created impacts that have lasted – and will last – for generations.”

The Marshall Islands submitted a proposed nuclear settlement agreement to US negotiators during the second round of talks in July. The US has not responded, Kedi and other negotiating committee members said Friday in Majuro.

In response to questions about the postponement of the planned negotiating session, the State Department released a brief statement through its embassy in Majuro.

“With respect to the Compact Negotiations, which are ongoing, both sides continue to work diligently towards an agreement,” the statement said. “Special Presidential Envoy for Compact Negotiations, Ambassador Joe Yun, is expected to meet with President Kabua while he is in Washington to continue to advance the discussions.”

While the Marshall Islands decision to cancel its negotiating group’s attendance at a scheduled session in Washington is a blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to fast-track approval of the security and economic agreement for this strategic North Pacific area, island leaders continue to describe themselves as part of the “US family.”

“The cancellation of the talks indicates the seriousness of this issue for the Marshall Islands,” said National Nuclear Commission Chairman Alson Kelen. “This is the best time for us to stand up for our rights.”

‘Fair and just’ nuclear settlement
For decades, the Pacific Island Forum countries that will be represented at this week’s leader’s summit in Washington have stood behind the Marshall Islands in its quest for a fair and just nuclear settlement, said Kelen, who helped negotiators develop their plan submitted recently to the US government for addressing lingering problems of the 67 nuclear tests.

“We live with the problem (from the nuclear tests),” said Kelen, a displaced Bikini Islander. “We know the big picture: bombs tested, people relocated from their islands, people exposed to nuclear fallout, and people studied. We can’t change that. What we can do now is work on the details for this today for the funding needed to mitigate the problems from the nuclear legacy.”

Kedi said he was tired of US attempts to argue over legal issues from the original Compact of Free Association’s nuclear test settlement that was approved 40 years ago before the Marshall Islands was an independent nation.

That agreement, which provided a now-exhausted $150 million nuclear compensation fund, was called “manifestly inadequate” by the country’s Nuclear Claims Tribunal, which over a two-decade period determined the value of claims to be over $3 billion.

“Bottom line, the nuclear issue needs to be addressed,” Kedi said.

“We need to come up with a dignified solution as family members. I’ve made it clear, once these key issues are addressed, we are ready to sign the Compact tomorrow.”

President Kabua is scheduled to participate in the White House-sponsored US Pacific Islands Summit on September 28-29.

Meanwhile, the members of his Compact negotiating team are in Majuro waiting for a response from the US government to their proposal to address the nuclear legacy.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

A massive earthquake has sent shockwave across PNG with at least four dead, properties and key infrastructure destroyed and fears of a mounting death toll.

The 7.6 magnitude earthquake struck at 9:45am yesterday and rocked the newly-built five-star dormitories at the University of Goroka, leaving about 7600 students homeless and forcing PNG Power to shut down the country’s biggest dam at Yonki.

The plant generates and supplies power to Morobe, Madang and the Highlands region. Parts of Highlands Highway in the Markham Valley were cracked open.

• READ MORE: Fears of rising death toll after powerful earthquake rocks eastern Papua New Guinea
• Other earthquake reports in PNG

At the UoG, the students rushed down the stairways and scurried out of the dormitories as a debris of brick blocks, metals and glasses crashed around them. The ceilings and walls cracked open and a section of one of the buildings’ roofs collapsed.

“The earthquake of whatever size it was has hit all our new dormitories to the very core of their foundations,” said a university academic, Dr Maninga.

“We invite the structural engineering professionals to assess the damage before we make any serious decision.

“We will also enquire with the national geohazard centre if we are to expect another earthquake and of what magnitude.

“Also, we look forward to meeting with a team from the DHERST (Department of Higher Education Research Science and Technology) with Minister Don Polye.

Tackling the emergency
“This unfortunate natural disaster has placed us in an emergency situation and we look forward to meeting with them to address this emergency. In the meantime, the students are advised to find shelters where they can.

“Those students from outside the province can use the classrooms for studies and lodging as well.

“The mess will be opened and continue to serve the students.”

The UoG students council representative, Melvin Kink, said the students understood the situation they were in now and would cooperate with the administration to live through it until further advice.

He also told the PNG Post-Courier that their library building was also affected.

PNG Power advised of a total power system outage in Morobe, Madang and the Highlands region following the earthquake.

The power supplier confirmed reports of damages at the Ramu Hydro power station and switch yard and advised that their team would carry out a proper check before they could safely restore power supply to their customers.

First medivac from landslide
The Post-Courier received a report of Manolos Aviation making its first medivac of a couple injured in a landslide as a direct result of the earthquake out of Kabwun district in Morobe Province.

In the Rai Coast, Madang Province, reports were going viral on social media of people and properties buried in landslides.

In Yelia Local Level Government constituency of Obura-Wanenara district in Eastern Highlands Province, Kevin Kojompa, a teacher at the Yelia Primary School, said staff houses were destroyed.

The National Disaster Centre acting director Martin Mose said he had not yet received a full report on the nationwide effects of the earthquake.

Yesterday was a weekend day and the Post-Courier was unable to reach the National Disaster Centre or its provincial branches bout the effects of the earthquake.

Meanwhile, aircraft were using Goroka Airport after the earthquake, which signals that it was not affected.

Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

As the criminal Russian invasion of Ukraine enters its fourth month, the peace and progressive movement has some hard rethinking to do.

Congress has appropriated $54 billion for the Ukraine war – $13.6 billion in March and $40.1 billion on May 19 – of which $31.3 is for military purposes.  The May vote was 368-57 in the House and 86-11 in the Senate.  All Democrats and all Massachusetts Representatives and Senators voted for the war funding, while a substantial number of Trumpist Republicans voted no.

Previously antiwar Democrats like Reps. Ayanna Pressley, Jim McGovern, Barbara Lee, Pramila Jayapal, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Ed Markey, have uncritically embraced the Administration’s escalating proxy war against Russia.  They have said little to explain their actions; only Cori Bush released a statement questioning the level of military aid, even while voting for it.

On Ukraine, there is no peace voice in Congress.

The Administration has been telegraphing since April that its aims go well beyond defending Ukraine.  President Biden said that President Putin “cannot remain in power”.  Secretary of Defense Austin said the U.S. seeks to weaken Russia.  And Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that we are fighting until “victory”.

The Biden Administration has not outlined a strategy for ending the war – only one for hitting back at Russia.  Secretary of State Blinken has not met with Russian Foreign Secretary Lavrov since the Russian invasion started more than two months ago.   There is no off-ramp.  There is no diplomacy.

Even the New York Times editors, who, like their news department, have generally been cheerleaders for the war, are now calling for caution, asking, “What is America’s Strategy in Ukraine?” in a May 19 editorial.  “The White House not only risks losing Americans’ interest in supporting Ukrainians — who continue to suffer the loss of lives and livelihoods — but also jeopardizes long-term peace and security on the European continent,” they wrote.

On June 13, Steven Erlanger in the Times made clear that French president Macron and German chancellor Scholz are not calling for Ukrainian victory, but for peace.

Robert Kuttner, Joe Cirincione, Matt Duss, and Bill Fletcher Jr. are among well-known progressive voices who have joined the call for the US to support Ukraine with military aid, while US peace voices such as Noam Chomsky, Codepink, and UNAC warn of the consequences of doing so and call for negotiations instead of arms.

Ukraine is the victim of aggression and has the right to defend itself, and other states have the right to aid it.  But it does not follow that the United States should provide arms to Ukraine.  The US risks being drawn into a wider war with Russia. It diverts funds needed for COVID relief, housing, combating climate change and more to a power struggle in Europe, and pours more into the coffers of the military-industrial complex.

So why have so many progressives fallen into line behind the Administration’s policy of defeating Russia?

First, many progressives, like Biden and the centrist Democrats, say that the primary struggle in the world today is between democracy and authoritarianism, with the United States as the leader of the democracies.   In this view, Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, and Vladimir Putin exemplify an anti-democratic tendency that democracies must resist.  Bernie Sanders laid out his version of this perspective in Fulton, Missouri, in 2017.  Linking an anti-authoritarian foreign policy to his domestic agenda, Sanders connects authoritarianism to inequality, corruption, and oligarchy, saying they are part of the same system.

As Aaron Maté explains, support by Sanders and other progressive electeds for the Russiagate conspiracy theory starting in 2016 set the stage for them to embrace an anti-Russian consensus, which, when the war in Ukraine broke out, prepared them to support a US armed confrontation with Russia.

But the belief that the U.S. is the defender of democracy provides an ideological justification for US antagonism to Russia, China, and other countries that won’t follow US dictates.   Peace lovers must reject this view.

Yes, we should support democracy.  But the U.S. is hardly in a position to bring democracy to the world.  U.S. democracy has always been tilted in favor of the rich and is ever more so today.  The U.S. quest to impose its own model of “democracy” on other countries has led it to cause the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan, and to unrelenting antagonism to Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, China, and more.

Rather, countries with different political systems need to respect each other and settle their differences peacefully.  Peace means opposing military alliances, opposing arms sales and transfers, and supporting a greatly strengthened United Nations.   It certainly doesn’t mean embracing a country that isn’t even a U.S. ally, flooding it with arms, and making its war our own.

In reality, the U.S. is an empire, not a democracy.  Its policy is not driven by the needs or opinions of its people, but by the needs of capitalism. Massachusetts Peace Action first laid out this perspective eight years ago in our discussion paper, A Foreign Policy for All.

Our understanding that the U.S. is an empire is not shared by Democratic progressives such as Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, McGovern, Pressley, Warren, or others.  While they critique capitalist control of U.S. politics, they have not applied this critique to foreign policy.  In effect, their view is that the U.S. is an imperfect democracy and that we should use U.S. military power to check authoritarian states around the world.

Such a view is not far from the neoconservative line that the U.S. is the last best hope of freedom.  In this way, the progressive Democrats become leaders of the war party.

Second, progressives support human rights and international law.  When US adversaries trample on human rights or invade other countries, progressives sympathize with the victims. They’re right to do so.

But progressives are not skeptical enough. They are often manipulated by the war party to sign on to US wars and sanctions campaigns that are totally ineffective at supporting human rights and really undermine them.  We say they should sanction U.S. human rights offenses first before trying to teach other countries how to uphold rights.

Progressives also sign on too quickly to coercive or military means to attempt to redress human rights violations.

Human rights violations happen in all wars, including both those started by the United States and those started by Russia.  War itself is a violation of human rights.

As Yale law professor Samuel Moyn writes, the effort to make war more humane has contributed to making US wars “more acceptable to many and difficult to see for to others.”

Until they are ready to see that other countries’ political systems also deserve respect and engagement, progressives are not able to break out of the war party’s frame. They may at times oppose it on specific issues, but they are still buying into American exceptionalism.

Progressives seem to have forgotten the anti-interventionism that served them so well when they resisted the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and (to some extent) the Syria and Libya interventions of the past two decades.  They have suddenly forgotten their skepticism of propaganda and are grabbing for their helmets.

U.S. public opinion is already beginning to shift on Ukraine as the economic damage of sanctions sets in.  This was reflected in the 68 Republican votes against the Ukraine aid package.  So far, progressives are boxed in by their American exceptionalist and anti-Russian ideology and have declined to take up this issue.  As antiwar sentiment grows, as it is sure to, the progressive movement will pay a heavy price for the decision of its Congressional delegation to support the U.S. war effort.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Cole Harrison.