Another day, another unhinged racist screed from Republicans in Congress that results in virtually no mainstream media coverage because the target is a Muslim-American. 

Tuesday night, in response to a post on X/Twitter from Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) that echoed the International Criminal Court’s designation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a war criminal, Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) posted on X/Twitter. “I’m sure it is difficult to see us welcome the killer of so many of your fellow Muslim terrorists,” he wrote. “The only shame is that you serve in Congress.” 

The statement follows a long pattern of targeted racist harassment and incitement from Reps. Fine and Nancy Mace (R-SC). And, just like all previous racist attacks, it did not merit coverage in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, or CBS network news, or on-air coverage at CNN. The only coverage Fine’s bigoted rant solicited were short write-ups in Politico, Reuters, and CNN.com, and NBC News web only, and the only substantive coverage was from MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, who did an 8 minute, 41 second segment detailing Fine’s long history of incitement.

Adding urgency to the violent rhetoric is the fact that Omar was among the Minnesota officials who appeared on target lists compiled by accused murderer Vance Boelter, who allegedly assassinated Democrats in a shooting spree last month.

Unlike Fine’s previous racist screeds, this one at least resulted in condemnation from Democratic leadership in the House. Previous racist social media posts merited no such response. But Fine’s latest rant—in concert with the killing of Minnesota progressives last month—appears to have been a bridge too far, even for the normally silent and cynical Democratic leadership. 

In the past, Fine has called Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) ​“a terrorist” who ​“shouldn’t be American.” (Tlaib was born in Detroit, Michigan). He said Tlaib and Omar ​“might consider leaving before I get [to Congress]. #BombsAway.” He has advocated running over and killing pro-Palestine protesters, called Palestinians ​“animals,” referred to Muslims as ​“rapists,” and openly cheered starving civilians in Gaza. In May, Fine attacked Tlaib on X/Twitter, writing in response to her condemnation of Israel’s starvation campaign in Gaza, ​“Tell your fellow Muslim terrorists to release the hostages and surrender. Until then, #StarveAway.” In June, Fine’s colleague Mace told the PBD Podcast she wanted to “send Ilhan Omar Back To Somalia,” in response to Omar’s criticisms of Trump’s immigration crackdowns. She later doubled down on X/Twitter: “Omar clearly has more loyalty to the corrupt hellhole she came from than to the country she was elected to serve.” 

None of these attacks merited any mainstream media coverage—much less any sustained outrage or condemnation. The only reason the latest round of incitement got a handful of blurbs in Politico and CNN.com and (belatedly) a segment on MSNBC is likely because Democrats finally condemned them. And that’s all. Crickets from the New York Times, Washington Post network news, and CNN.

This raises the question: What would Fine or Mace have to say to justify actual media outrage? Actual sustained coverage? These attacks are not subtle or reliant on dog whistles. They’re out in the open, proudly hateful, and an invitation for their proudly bigoted social media followers to double down. 

Contrast this media silence after months of sustained racist incitement against Reps. Omar and Tlaib with the week-long media meltdown last September when Tlaib suggested that Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed charges against pro-Palestinian activists at the University of Michigan because she was potentially biased against pro-Palestine protesters. ​“We’ve [protested for] climate, the immigrant rights movement, for Black lives, and even around issues of injustice among water shutoffs,” Tlaib told the Detroit Metro Times. ​“But it seems that the attorney general decided if the issue was Palestine, she was going to treat it differently, and that alone speaks volumes about possible biases within the agency she runs.”

This comment turned out to be entirely correct. The Nessel-led prosecution arrested seven pro-Palestine protesters in a pre-dawn raid in April and the charges were later dropped after Nessel was pressured to recuse herself for anti-Palestinian bias. But at the time, despite the interviewer himself defending Tlaib, the congresswoman’s remarks solicited a full-blown “antisemitism” scandal meriting coverage in USA Today, Newsweek, Fox News and The Free Press, and culminating in a smear campaign by CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, which outright asserted Tlaib was an anti-Jewish bigot. This was is addition to the countless articles and segments in the New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, Axios, CNN, MSNBC, NBC News, CBS News, and ABC News in late 2023 lamenting Tlaib’s alleged “antisemitism” because she defended the term ​“from the River to the Sea” as a call for equality and freedom in Palestine.

Tapper, who hosts two influential cable news shows—his daily weekday show The Lead, and the Sunday morning agenda-setting news program State of the Union—is the most nakedly hypocritical commentator in all of media. He effectively manufactured the “antisemitism” scandal targeting Tlaib last September out of whole cloth, outright lying about her in an interview with Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. “Congresswoman Tlaib is suggesting,” Tapper somberly said on air, “that [AG Nessel] shouldn’t be prosecuting these individuals that Nessel says broke the law and that she’s only doing it because she’s Jewish”—which is not at all what Tlaib said. A smear neither Bash nor Tapper ever apologized for or retracted, only opaquely saying they “misspoke” in a throwaway line days later. 

Since this shameful, false smear of Tlaib, there’s been a half-dozen racist attacks on Tlaib and her Muslim colleague in Congress by Fine and others, and has Tapper done a single segment on it? He has not. He did, however, find time last night to platform the  head of pro-Israel pressure group ADL Jonathan Greenblatt so he could (again) defend Musk’s neo-Nazi gesture from Trump’s inauguration and accuse the largest union in the country, the National Education Association, of “antisemitism” for cutting ties with the ADL over its promotion of anti-Palestinian racism and Israeli foreign policy. Tapper also conspicuously failed to ask Greenblatt about a recent high profile rebuke of Greenblatt by Yehuda Cohen, father of Israeli captive Nimrod Cohen, who accused Greenblatt of fabricating a story about his family to promote “cheap patriotism” and “endless war in Gaza.”

Defending the expression “from the River to the Sea” and noting allegations—entirely correct, it turns out—of anti-Palestinian bias from a state prosecutor results in weeks-long media scandal, meltdowns, cable news mentions, pundit commentary, and congressional censures. Yet out-in-the-open anti-Muslim bigtory and calls for violence against sitting members of Congress are barely mentioned at all. The double standard—which, as Zeteo’s Prem Thakker notes, isn’t really a double standard since only one side is actually being bigoted—could not be more obvious. The question is, why? 

The reason is that “antisemitism” scandals in our media are almost never about combating the very real dangers of antisemitism. They’re about disciplining critics of Israel. They’re about using the language of liberalism against liberalism, protecting US and Israeli regional hegemony by attacking anyone undermining its ideological underpinnings. Meanwhile, actual racism, actual incitement, and actual defamation of Muslim-Americans solicits a yawn because it poses no challenge to US and Israeli national security interests and, in key ways, assists them by stoking the anti-Muslim racism essential for its maintenance. It’s an inconsistency that has always been present, but with the latest crop of cartoonishly racist MAGA trolls in Congress, the glaring double standard has grown wider and more obvious. The question is whether anyone in mainstream media, beyond a one-off segment on MSNBC, will note it, much less gin up a scandal over it.

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Adam Johnson.

Sebastien Lai has sought a meeting with Starmer for more than two years to advocate for the release of his father, 77-year-old Jimmy Lai, who founded Apple Daily. His health is deteriorating and he risks dying in jail.

Lai has been imprisoned for over 1,600 days, mostly in isolation, while awaiting the outcome of a long-delayed trial for sedition and conspiring to collude with foreign forces under the Beijing-imposed National Security Law. After Lai’s arrest in 2020, Apple Daily was shuttered on June 24, 2021, following police raids and the freezing of the paper’s assets.

Read the full joint letter here.

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

He was addressing reporters after the 10th governing council meeting of the Niti Aayog, a government think tank. The theme for this meeting, Subrahmanyam said, was ‘Viksit Rajya for Viksit Bharat’ which meant states must present their own growth visions in order for India to be a developed economy.

“It is only US, China, Germany, which are larger than India and if we stick to what is being planned and what is being thought through, in 2.5-3 years, we will be the third largest economy,” he added.

Subrahmanyam’s statements created a wave of euphoria. On May 27, even Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed the achievement, emphasising how India moved from being the 11th-ranked economy to the 4th-ranked economy during his tenure.

#WATCH | Gandhinagar: Prime Minister Narendra Modi says “On 26th May 2014, I took the oath as the Prime Minister for the first time. At that time, India’s economy was at the 11th position…Today, India has become the world’s fourth-largest economy. It is a matter of pride for… pic.twitter.com/OFNMPEKXvq

— ANI (@ANI) May 27, 2025

Some prominent personalities who reiterated Subrahmanyam’s claims on social media include Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan, Mahindra Group chairperson Anand Mahindra, RPG Group chairperson Harsh Goenka, tech entrepreneur Kunal Bahl who has appeared on Shark Tank India and Mamaearth CEO Ghazal Alagh. Several BJP leaders, or politicians associated with BJP allies and some journalists also parroted the statements, celebrating India’s growth trajectory. Note that most social media posts on this also shared a graphic where the source was IMF’s World Economic Outlook Report, April 2025.

Fact Check

Alt News first thoroughly looked at International Monetary Fund’s latest publication, the World Economic Outlook Report, that was released on on April 22, 2025. Nowhere in that report does it say that India is the fourth-largest economy or that it has surpassed Japan.

We also found no statistical chart in the 190-page report that ranked countries’ gross domestic product (GDP) as indicated in the social media posts. Note that GDP is the sum total of the value of goods and services produced by a country annually and is often used to refer to the size of an economy.

However, the World Economic Outlook (WEO) section allows downloading economic database by country. Alt News downloaded the database for gross domestic product (at current prices expressed in US dollars) for all countries. The excel sheet mentioned the countries alphabetically and gave us the GDP (in US$) for all countries between 2022 and 2029. However, for India, the GDP figures after 2024 were estimates.

Also, note that for India, the year 2025 refers to the financial year 2025-26 or FY26 (April 2025 to March 2026), for which GDP numbers are estimates because we’re barely two months into this financial year. It does not refer to the calendar year 2025 (January to December). This is clarified in the report and in the statistical index.

So, in 2024 or financial year 2024-25 (FY25), India’s GDP was $3.91 trillion, going by IMF’s World Economic Outlook data. According to the same IMF data, India is estimated to reach $4.187 trillion at the end of FY26.

We compared the data with Japan. Even for Japan, data after 2024 are all estimates. In the calendar year 2024, Japan’s GDP was $4.03 trillion. At the end of 2025, Japan’s GDP is estimated to reach $4.186 trillion.

A close reading of International Monetary Fund’s data clearly shows that India has not yet surpassed Japan, in terms of gross domestic product. According to estimates, it may overtake Japan at the end of financial year 2025-26 or FY26. Again, these are estimates and even then, the difference in the GDP of the two is fairly narrow. Currently, India remains in the fifth position

According to IMF’s WEO data, based on official GDP figures for 2024 (which we sorted in descending order; IMF gives data alphabetically), countries with the highest GDP are (1) the United States of America, (2) China, (3) Germany, (4) Japan, (5) India and the (6) United Kingdom (in that order). Rows 1-5 in the screenshot below are not rankings but appear on top owing to lack of data (denoted by n/a).

It’s strange then that Niti Aayog CEO Subrahmanyam, an Indian Administrative Service officer since 1987, who has served in several government positions, including at the PMO, and had a stint at the World Bank, used projections to refer to current rankings. We say this because other members of the policy think tank, such as Arvind Virmani, were careful to say that India would become the fourth-largest economy only by the end of 2025.

“India is in the process of becoming the fourth largest economy, and I am personally confident that will happen by the end of 2025 because we need (data) of all 12 months GDP to say that, you know, to assert that. So to say till then, it remains a forecast,” Virmani told news agency PTI. On Niti CEO BVR Subrahmanyam’s remark that India is already there, he said: “…I really do not know what the words anybody has used. Perhaps there was some word which was missed or something.”

Note that the IMF presents data from government figures and estimates and makes projections based on these. It does not collect or gather data on its own.

Also, even if we do surpass Japan in terms of GDP, experts have warned against reading too much into it or using that data as the marker of a country’s progress. That’s because a roaring GDP does not guarantee an overall high per capita income, nor does it take a holistic view of income inequalities and unemployment. That, however, is a much longer discussion.

To sum up, Niti Aayog CEO BVR Subrahmanyam’s claim that India is currently the fourth-largest and a $4-trillion economy, citing IMF data, is misleading. India is currently the fifth-largest in terms of GDP. Projected estimates suggest that it could surpass Japan by the end of the 2025-26 fiscal.

The post India is not the fourth-largest or a $4-trillion economy yet; NITI Aayog CEO’s claim citing IMF data misleading appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Diti Pujara.

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

Funding for New Zealand’s Ministry for Pacific Peoples (MPP) is set to be reduced by almost $36 million in Budget 2025.

This follows a cut of nearly $26 million in the 2024 budget.

As part of these budgetary savings, the Tauola Business Fund will be closed. But, $6.3 million a year will remain to support Pacific economic and business development through the Pacific Business Trust and Pacific Business Village.

• READ MORE: Budget 2025 at a glance: The big changes, winners and losers
• Govt should defuse NZ’s social timebomb – but won’t
• Budget 2025: Pasifika community braces for impact

The Budget cuts also affect the Tupu Aotearoa programme, which supports Pacific people in finding employment and training, alongside the Ministry of Social Development’s employment initiatives.

While $5.25 million a year will still fund the programme, a total of $22 million a year has been cut over the last four years.

The ministry will save almost $1 million by returning funding allocated for the Dawn Raids reconciliation programme from 2027/28 onwards.

There are two years of limited funding left to complete the ministry Dawn Raids programmes, which support the Crown’s reconciliation efforts.

Funding for Pasifika Wardens
Despite these reductions, a new initiative providing funding for Pasifika Wardens will introduce $1 million of new spending over the next four years.

The initiative will improve services to Pacific communities through capacity building, volunteer training, transportation, and enhanced administrative support.

Funding for the National Fale Malae has ceased, as only $2.7 million of the allocated $10 million has been spent since funding was granted in Budget 2020.

The remaining $6.6 million will be reprioritised over the next two years to address other priorities within the Arts, Culture and Heritage portfolio, including the National Music Centre.

Foreign Affairs funding for the International Development Cooperation (IDC) projects, particularly focussed on the Pacific, is also affected. The IDC received an $800 million commitment in 2021 from the Labour government.

The funding was time-limited, leading to a $200 million annual fiscal cliff starting in January 2026.

Budget 2025 aims to mitigate this impact by providing ongoing, baselined funding of $100 million a year to cover half of the shortfall. An additional $5 million will address a $10 million annual shortfall in departmental funding.

Support for IDC projects
The new funding will support IDC projects, emphasising the Pacific region without being exclusively aimed at climate finance objectives. Overall, $367.5 million will be allocated to the IDC over four years.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the Budget addressed a prominent fiscal cliff, especially concerning climate finance.

“The Budget addresses this, at least in part, through ongoing, baselined funding of $100 million a year, focused on the Pacific,” she said in her Budget speech.

“Members will not be surprised to know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has made a case for more funding, and this will be looked at in future Budgets.”

More funding has been allocated for new homework and tutoring services for learners in Years nine and 10 at schools with at least 50 percent Pacific students to meet the requirements for the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA).

About 50 schools across New Zealand are expected to benefit from the initiative, which will receive nearly $7 million over the next four years, having been reprioritised from funding for the Pacific Education Programme.

As a result, funding will be stopped for three programmes aimed at supporting Tu’u Mālohi, Pacific Reading Together and Developing Mathematical Inquiry Communities.

Republished from Pacific Media Network News with permission.

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

“[China is] carrying out activities such as division, destruction, and subversion from within us,” Lai said in remarks that were broadcast live from the presidential office following a press briefing with senior security officials.

“China’s acts are the definition of a foreign hostile force under our Anti-Infiltration Act. We have no choice but to take more active measures,” he said.

Lai’s comments mark the first time a Taiwanese leader has characterized China as a “foreign adversary.”

When asked whether his statement could escalate tensions across the Taiwan Strait, Lai responded by pointing to Beijing’s ongoing pressure campaign against Taiwan, Channel News Asia said in a report.

“The political and military intimidation, United Front tactics, and infiltration operations launched by China against Taiwan” had already met the definition of a foreign adversary, the report quoted Lai as saying.

“Taiwan is never the one that escalates tensions,” he claimed, adding that the island remains committed to the security and stability of the Asian region.

(Chiang Ying-ying/AP)

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning dismissed Lai’s comments during a regular press briefing, reiterating Beijing’s stance that “Taiwan is part of China” and that “there is no so-called president in Taiwan.”

But the official China Daily quoted Chen Binhua, the spokesperson for Beijing’s Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, denouncing Lai as a “destroyer of cross-Strait peace.”

He added that “if the ‘Taiwan independence’ separatist forces dare to cross the red line, the mainland will have to take resolute measures.‘”

Chen did not elaborate on what would constitute “crossing the red line” or what measures Beijing would take in response.

Edited by Joshua Lipes and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Mandarin.

“Prices are rising and yet the Trump Administration has ‘no timeline’ and no plan to lower costs for families. Americans are taking notice, with consumer sentiment at its lowest since July, and consumers expect inflation to go even higher.

“Instead of bringing down prices, Trump and his billionaire buddy Elon Musk are laser-focused on shutting down consumer protection enforcers like CFPB, which has returned more than $20 billion to defrauded Americans, and trying to defund Social Security and Medicare. Targeting people’s health care and exposing them to financial scams does nothing to lower the cost of living.”

Email press@groundworkcollaborative.org to speak with one of Groundwork’s experts about today’s CPI report and the high cost of living.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

“Prices are rising and yet the Trump Administration has ‘no timeline’ and no plan to lower costs for families. Americans are taking notice, with consumer sentiment at its lowest since July, and consumers expect inflation to go even higher.

“Instead of bringing down prices, Trump and his billionaire buddy Elon Musk are laser-focused on shutting down consumer protection enforcers like CFPB, which has returned more than $20 billion to defrauded Americans, and trying to defund Social Security and Medicare. Targeting people’s health care and exposing them to financial scams does nothing to lower the cost of living.”

Email press@groundworkcollaborative.org to speak with one of Groundwork’s experts about today’s CPI report and the high cost of living.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

According to Section 126(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act 1951, a mandatory ‘silence period’ begins 48 hours before the conclusion of polling. This period prohibits any form of campaigning, including advertisements, to allow voters to make decisions without undue influence. The ECI has consistently emphasized the importance of this provision and issued guidelines to political parties and social media platforms to ensure compliance with the Model Code of Conduct.

The Jharkhand assembly elections were conducted in two phases on November 13 and November 20, 2024. Ahead of the elections, on November 9, the ECI issued specific instructions regarding media coverage during the silence period, explicitly banning election-related content on platforms like television and social media during this crucial time frame.

Despite these directives, several Facebook pages directly linked to BJP candidates and proxy pages were found running election advertisements during the silence period. 

On November 19, 2024, just a day before the final phase of polling, Alt News flagged seven such pages to Meta for violating the rules. These included campaign pages for individual BJP leaders, proxy groups, and a news portal.

The following pages were identified for breaching the ECI guidelines:

1. The RajDharma
2. Madhupur Maange Ganga Narayan Singh
3. Jarmundi Maange Devendra Kunwar
4. Jama Ka Bharosa Suresh Murmu
5. Shikaripara Maange Paritosh Soren
6. Ek Akela Sab Par Bhari
7. Jharkhand Chaupal – झारखंड चौपाल

Meta was alerted about these violations, but as of now, no official response has been received. This report will be updated if and when Meta issues a clarification.

Following the alert by Alt News, several political advertisements on proxy pages like Jharkhand Chaupal and Ek Akela Sab Par Bhari were locally removed. These pages were among the largest spenders on ads during the Jharkhand elections. 

Additionally, five of the seven flagged pages are no longer accessible on Facebook. However, it remains unclear whether Meta removed them for violating policies or if they were voluntarily deactivated by their administrators.

This is not an isolated incident. Similar violations were reported during the Karnataka assembly elections, where a BJP proxy page ran political ads on the election day itself. Meta took swift action in that case, removing the ads and deleting the page the same day. Violations were also documented during the Gujarat assembly elections, with Facebook pages linked to the BJP ran ads during the silence period.

The recurring nature of these violations highlights the ineffectiveness of the ECI’s guidelines and the reluctance of candidates, political parties, and platforms to comply with the rules..

In India, the influence of social media on elections has grown significantly, alongside traditional media like newspapers, television, and radio. This amplifies the need for vigilance and accountability from both the ECI and platforms like Meta. 

The post Jharkhand elections: BJP-linked Facebook pages flouted ECI’s silence period rule, yet again appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Abhishek Kumar.

Israeli soldiers have just conducted what Gaza’s Civil Defense is calling a “major massacre” in Jabaliya, with more than 150 people killed or injured and dozens of buildings destroyed. It is the latest atrocity amid the military’s weekslong siege of northern Gaza. “It’s getting worse and worse,” says Dr. Mohammed Salha in a call from the Jabaliya refugee camp, where he is acting director of Al-Awda Hospital.

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

Photograph Source: The United States Department of Justice – Public Domain

In early September, the US Department of Justice announced criminal charges against two employees of RT (formerly Russia Today), alleging that the state media outlet “orchestrated a massive scheme to influence the American public by secretly planting and financing a content creation company on U.S. soil.”

Separately, DOJ announced its theft (“seizure”) of 32 Internet domains supposedly used to “covertly spread Russian government propaganda with the aim of reducing international support for Ukraine, bolstering pro-Russian policies and interests, and influencing voters in U.S. and foreign elections, including the U.S. 2024 Presidential Election. ”

The victims, per US Attorney Damian Williams? “[T]he American people, who received Russian messaging without knowing it.”

US Attorney General Merrick B. Garland weighed in as well: “The Justice Department will not tolerate attempts by an authoritarian regime to exploit our country’s free exchange of ideas in order to covertly further its own propaganda efforts.”

Oh, really?

Garland, once nominated to serve on the US Supreme Court, surely knows better. There is no “unless the ideas originate with parties I happen to dislike, or include content I disagree with” exception to the First Amendment’s free speech and free press guarantees.

DOJ doesn’t even enjoy the fig leaf of an “in extremis” excuse, such as a state of war existing between the US and Russia or an imminent threat of attack which the indictments and domain thefts might have thwarted.

Does the Russian regime “meddle” in US elections? Of course it does. All powerful regimes meddle in other countries’ elections.

The US regime has a long record of doing so, up to and including sponsoring coup attempts when other countries’ elections don’t go its preferred way.

Even smaller regimes get in on the election meddling game. The Israeli regime, acting through unregistered foreign agents, has openly and unashamedly meddled in US elections for decades, and to the tune of more than $100 million this year alone.

It’s not the Russian regime that Merrick Garland and friends mistrust. It’s you, the American voter.

Part of that mistrust may be simple paternalism: You’re too naive, perhaps too stupid, to sort matters out for yourself. If anyone not aligned with Merrick Garland and friends is permitted to talk to you, they’ll fill your head with nonsense and you’ll vote “the wrong way” in November.

Another part of it is raw, undalderated fear: If you hear things that might be true but that don’t line up with the goals, purposes, and desires of the US regime, you might make up your mind for yourself instead of just doing as you’re told.

The “Russian election interference” narrative is now into its third consecutive presidential election cycle. It slices! It dices! It juliennes!

It was Hillary Clinton’s excuse for running a poor campaign in 2016.

It was the mainstream media’s excuse for burying disclosures from Hunter Biden’s laptop in 2020.

This year it provides cover for the bipartisan US military misadventure in Ukraine.

Garland and Co. fear your opinion … if it’s formed without censorship on their part.

Ask yourself why.

The post Would-Be Censors Peddle Yet Another Election Meddle appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Thomas Knapp.

On September 5th and 6th, the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Haiti and the Dominican Republic. In Haiti, Blinken met with members of the US- and CARICOM-imposed “presidential council” and the illegitimate Prime Minister of Haiti to discuss support for the Kenyan and U.S. occupation forces currently present in the country.

On September 5, 2024, a group of Haitian and Dominican organizations released a statement denouncing Blinken’s visit to the island (English translation here). The statement titled, “Repudiation of the Presence of the Representative of Yankee Imperialism in Haiti and the Dominican Republic,” declared:

“This interventionist visit will bring no good to the Haitian people, nor to the Dominican people. Rather, it will seek to consolidate the neocolonial domination imposed on Haiti since the first U.S. military occupation (1915-1934) and on the Dominican Republic (1916-1924). In fact, Blinken’s only mission is to protect the interests of imperialism in Haiti and those of Haiti’s small, repugnant elite class. He will do the same in the Dominican Republic.”

Soon after Blinken’s departure from the island, Western media revealed the true U.S. objective of his visit: transforming the illegal, unpopular, and inept U.S.-led Multinational Security Support (MSS) mission of 400 Kenyan police officers into a full-scale UN occupation (cynically referred to as a “peacekeeping operation.”). This was further confirmed by reports that the UN Security Council is considering a resolution to deploy a military force to Haiti.

BAP’s position has been consistent and unwavering: we support Haitian self-determination. We will continue to struggle against foreign invasion and occupation of the country. Since 2021, we have advocated against U.S. imperial machinations in Haiti, including the continuing renewal of the mandate of the UN office in Haiti (BINUH), which Haitian people see as an occupation force, and the establishment of the MSS. BAP challenged the narrative of “gang violence” as a pretext for occupation and argued that it is the U.S.’s own puppets and Haitian oligarchs that are arming young men in Haiti. We warned that the MSS was a temporary cover for a more permanent military occupation of Haiti through proxies, and with the blessing of the UN. And we continue to remind people of the brutal repercussions of the two decades-long 2004 UN intervention and occupation of Haiti.

In solidarity with Haitian and Dominican organizations opposing U.S. imperialism, and in defense of Haitian self-determination and sovereignty, the Haiti/Americas Team of the Black Alliance for Peace demands an end to the current occupation of Haiti, calling for the closure of the BINUH office in Haiti, and the removal of Kenyan and U.S. militarized police from the country. We also demand that the UNSC cease its interference in Haitian affairs on behalf of the U.S.

We urge people of conscience around the world to help stop another UN invasion of Haiti and, we also warn leaders of the Caribbean and Latin America – who have either remained silent or are actively participating in the U.S. usurpation of Haitian sovereignty  – that if Haiti is not free from U.S. bullying and imperial control, no other country in the region will be free.

DEFEND HAITIAN SOVEREIGNTY!

U.S. OUT OF HAITI AND THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC!

END THE U.S./EU/NATO AXIS OF DOMINATION!

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Black Alliance for Peace.

On August 6, Zgambo was arrested on allegations of publishing seditious material, which under Zambian law includes content advocating for the overthrow of the government or raising “disaffection” among the public, for his July 28 commentary on the Facebook page of the online news outlet Zambian Whistleblower, which called on the government to be transparent about any links between a property it had rented and President Hakainde Hichilema.

Zgambo told CPJ that the police detained him in a cell until August 8 in a bid to get him to reveal his sources. “That is why they held me there for two nights. They just wanted to punish me,” said the journalist, who is due back in court on August 22.

When Hichilema won a landslide victory in 2021, he vowed that “the media will be freed” amid broader rhetoric on improving conditions for the press in Zambia. Despite these commitments, CPJ has since documented several attacks on the press, including arrests of journalists covering protests and the opposition.

“President Hakainde Hichilema’s promises to ensure media freedom in Zambia ring hollow after a journalist who criticized him was arrested and charged with an offense that carries a lengthy prison term,” said CPJ Africa Program Coordinator Muthoki Mumo, in Nairobi. “Zambian authorities must immediately drop all legal proceedings against Thomas Allan Zgambo. In addition, Zambia should scrap laws that criminalize the work of the press.”

A pattern of legal harassment 

Zambia is widely seen as one of Africa’s most stable democracies. From 2017 to 2022, it had no journalists in jail at 12:01 a.m. local time on December 1, when CPJ’s annual prison census is conducted.

In 2023, Zgambo became the first Zambian journalist to appear in the census in seven years. He was arrested on November 28 over his Zambian Whistleblower report that the Zambia National Service, an arm of the defense force, was importing “substandard” genetically modified maize from South Africa without informing consumers of any potential harm.

Zgambo was freed on bail on the morning of December 1, 2023, and is due back in court for a hearing on this case on August 27.

Zgambo is no stranger to the Zambian courts. He was first charged with sedition in 2013 after documents about the then-President Michael Sata were found in his home. Zgambo told CPJ that he was released on police bond but never received a date to appear in court. Sata died in 2014.

Weaponizing laws to target online journalism 

Like Zgambo, an increasing number of journalists in the region mainly publish via social media amid falling mainstream revenues and government repression. For example, in Somalia, social media can be a lifeline for local communities to access independent journalism and for freelancers to share their reporting.

CPJ has been tracking the weaponization of existing, often colonial–era, legislation to criminalize journalism, as well as the introduction of new laws to target online freedom of expression in countries like Nigeria, Tanzania, and Kenya. Eleven of the 12 imprisoned Rwandan and Ethiopian journalists in CPJ’s 2023 prison census operate outlets that publish on YouTube. 

The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, an African Union body, has called on countries in the region to repeal all criminal defamation, insult, and sedition laws. Although sedition provisions have been repealed in Uganda and Malawi, countries such as Zambia and Tanzania continue to use them against journalists.

Zambia’s State House spokesperson Clayson Hamasaka referred CPJ’s request for comment to the police. Police spokesperson Rae Hamoonga did not respond to CPJ’s calls and text messages requesting comment.

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

The political unrest that erupted in Bangladesh following the student protests over reservation descended into a disturbing path marked by escalating violence. In the wake of this turmoil, Sheikh Hasina was compelled to step down from her position as Prime Minister and flee the country on August 5. This was followed by several incidents of attacks on the minority Hindu community. Against this backdrop, numerous videos and images related to the violence began circulating widely on Indian social media platforms.

One such video shows a girl being beaten up and harassed by a mob. The clip has been widely shared with the claim that the girl is a Hindu and that she was being targeted and harassed by individuals from the Muslim community. The footage reveals women dressed in burqas and men wearing caps that are commonly associated with the Muslim community.

Ashwini Shrivastava, a Right-wing social media user, tweeted the video with similar claims. At the time this article being written, the video has received more than 9 Lakh views. (Archived link)

Lawyer and BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay also tweeted this video and wrote that the biggest enemies of Hindus were converted Hindus. (Archived link)

Many more X users have posted this video with the same claim.

This video has also been uploaded on YouTube with the same claim. (Link 1, Link 2)

Fact Check

Alt News observed that Shohanur Rahman, a fact-checker from Bangladesh-based outlet ‘Rumor Scanner’, had replied to Ashwini Srivastava’s tweet. Commenting on the alleged incident, he clarified that the woman seen in the video was not a Hindu as claimed, but a member of the Muslim community. Alt News, respecting the sensitivity of the situation, has chosen not to disclose the name of the victim in this report. The incident in question occurred on August 7 in the Tanker Par area of the Brahmanbaria district. The woman is reportedly a worker of the Mahila Chhatra League, a student wing of Sheikh Hasina’s political party, the Awami League. It appears that her association with this organisation was the reason she was targeted by the mob.

Based on this information, we performed a keyword search in Bengali on Facebook, which led us to a 6:48 second long related video. In one of the frames from this footage, we identified the words ‘Loknath Tank, B Baria’ inscribed on a wall. The caption of this Facebook post also corroborated this location, mentioning ‘Brahmanbaria Tank’ and ‘Chhatra League leader.’

It is important for readers to note that in both this longer Facebook video and the shorter viral video, a girl dressed in a black salwar suit with a red dupatta can be seen standing beside the victim. This individual appears prominently in both videos.

While investigating, Alt News found two Facebook videos of this incident. (Link 1, Link 2) After carefully analysing both videos, we observed a pink purse that was present in both. In the first video, the victim is seen clutching this pink purse. In the second video, the girl wearing the black suit and red dupatta is shown retrieving documents and other items from this pink purse. 

In this second Facebook video, the girl wearing the black suit takes out the victim’s ID card and shows it to the camera, which is from the Upazila Parishad elections. After seeing this ID card, it becomes clear that the victim girl is a Muslim. Below is a Google-translated version of the ID card which is in Bengali. 

To sum it up, a woman seen being harassed by a mob in this viral video is actually not a Hindu, but a Muslim. She was attacked due to her association with the Awami League.

Alt News debunked two similar false claims in the recent past where attacks on student leaders of Awami League in educational institutions were passed as targeted attack on Hindus. (1, 2)

The post Bangladesh: Yet another video of assault on Awami League youth leader viral in India with a communal spin appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Kinjal.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

Until Monday, a new online portal run by the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office contained what experts describe as a serious security vulnerability that would have allowed anyone to submit a voter cancellation request for any Georgian. All that was required was a name, date of birth and county of residence — information easily discoverable for many people online.

The flaw was brought to the attention of ProPublica and Atlanta News First over the weekend by a cybersecurity researcher, Jason Parker. Parker, who uses they/them pronouns, said that after discovering it, they attempted to contact the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office. The office said it had no records of Parker’s attempts to reach out.

“It’s a terrible vulnerability to leave open, and it’s essential to be fixed,” Parker said.

The issue Parker exposed was “as bad as any voter cancellation bug could be” and “incredibly sloppy coding,” said Zach Edwards, a senior threat researcher at the cybersecurity firm Silent Push, who reviewed the flaw at the request of ProPublica. “It’s shocking to have one of these bugs occur on a serious website.” Edwards said that even a basic penetration test, in which outside experts vet the security of a website before its launch, “should have picked this up.”

ProPublica and Atlanta News First jointly alerted the Secretary of State’s Office to the vulnerability and held the publication of their articles until it was fixed.

“We have updated the process to include an error message letting the individual know their submission is incomplete and will not be processed,” Blake Evans, Georgia’s elections director, said in a statement from the Secretary of State’s Office.

In the days after the portal launched last Monday, The Associated Press and The Current each reported the existence of separate security vulnerabilities that exposed voters’ sensitive personal information, including the last four digits of their Social Security number and their full driver’s license number. The Secretary of State’s Office told the news organizations that it quickly fixed the portal. Democrats warned that the system could be abused, as right-wing activists have been challenging tens of thousands of voter registrations in a different process that a 2021 state law expanded. Over the weekend, ProPublica reported that users of the portal had unsuccessfully attempted to cancel the voter registrations of two prominent Republican officials, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.

The flaw found by Parker was different from the two previously reported ones. This one would allow any user of the portal to bypass the screen that requires a driver’s license number and submit the cancellation request without it.

The Secretary of State “needs to consider this an all-hands-on-deck” moment “and hire multiple testing and security firms and stop relying on the public’s goodwill and pro bono security researchers to test the quality of their website,” Edwards said. “At this point, we should assume there are other subtle bugs that could have potentially serious impact.” Edwards said that it would have been easy for a malicious actor to automate cancellation requests to get around security measures built into the website and submit thousands of them.

In a video shared with ProPublica, Parker, who is moving from Georgia to another state, demonstrated how the registration cancellation tool could be exploited in roughly a minute. First, they entered their name, date of birth and county of residence to get past the website’s initial screening page. When the portal asked them for a driver’s license number, Parker right-clicked to inspect the browser’s HTML code — a basic option available to anyone — and deleted a few lines of code requiring them to submit their driver’s license number. Parker then hit submit. A window popped up stating that “Your cancellation request has been successfully submitted” and that county election workers would process the request within a week.

Parker said it took them less than two hours of poking around the website to find the vulnerability.

“Incomplete paper and online applications will not be accepted,” Evans said in the statement. (Parker’s cancellation request would have lacked a driver’s license number.) The Secretary of State’s Office did not respond to individual questions about what testing the portal underwent before launch, the system’s security procedures, what happened to Parker’s cancellation request and how the public could be sure of the portal’s security given the recent disclosures of security flaws.

“The Secretary of State’s Office needs to do better,” said Marisa Pyle, the senior democracy defense manager for Georgia with All Voting is Local, a voting rights advocacy organization. “The state needs to be really intentional about how it rolls out these things. It needs to make sure they’re secure and provide their rationale for making them.”

Jake Braun, the author of a book on cybersecurity flaws in election systems and lecturer at the University of Chicago, said that there is a long history of elections-related websites suffering from easily exploitable security failures, including Russians hacking election infrastructure during the 2016 election and public-interest competitions in which participants breached replicas of state election websites in minutes. Online elections infrastructure, he said, “needs more standards and better standards.”

Edwards said that the portal’s vulnerability-plagued rollout showed the necessity of improving the vetting process.

“Georgia should step up and pass a law saying all new websites in which the public interacts with government documents should have an outside review,” Edwards said. The public “should expect” officials “did some due diligence.”

Do you have any information about the Georgia voter registration cancellation portal, voter challenges or anything voter-related that we should know? Contact reporter Doug Bock Clark by email at doug.clark@propublica.org and by phone or Signal at 678-243-0784. If you’re concerned about confidentiality, check out our advice on the most secure ways to share tips.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Doug Bock Clark.

Members of the National Defense and Security Council unanimously agreed to the extension, which puts off the junta’s often-delayed plans for multi-party national elections until next year.

Myanmar’s Constitution mandates that elections must be held within six months after a state of emergency is lifted.

The extension also gives the military broad extra-constitutional powers amid ongoing armed conflict by resistance forces battling the army in many parts of Myanmar. 

“It is necessary to restore peace and stability because of ongoing terrorist activities,” state-run media said of the extension, referring to the armed resistance.

The meeting in Naypyidaw was presided over by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, who officially signed off on the extension as acting president. He added the title last week after the previous nominal head of state, Myint Swe, went on medical leave. 

Min Aung Hlaing has led the military junta as chairman of the State Administration Council – the junta’s formal name – since the February 2021 coup d’état.

The junta has repeatedly extended emergency rule since seizing power from the democratically elected government of de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi and President Win Myint, who were arrested and subsequently jailed on what rights groups said were politically motivated charges.

“The Burma military regime’s extension of the state of emergency is at odds with the aspirations of the people of Burma, including their continued strong opposition to military rule,” U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said in a statement.

“We call on the regime to engage with all stakeholders to pursue a path toward a peaceful, representative, and democratic future for Burma,” he said. “The regime must end its violence against the people of Burma, release those unjustly detained, and allow in unhindered humanitarian access.”

Declining value of kyat

The military failed to hold elections in 2023 as its control of the country slipped. Opponents had dismissed the planned election as a sham because it appeared likely to exclude parties ousted from power by the coup.

In the meantime, experts say, junta mismanagement has decimated the economy, the value of the kyat has plummeted and foreign investors have fled the country. 

Currency traders on Wednesday reported a market exchange rate of 5,370 kyats per U.S. dollar in the commercial capital of Yangon – a record low.

A gold trader who requested anonymity for security reasons said that the rise in foreign exchange rates had also led to an increase in gold prices.

“As long as the price of foreign currency increases, the price of gold will continue to rise,” he said. “That’s how it is. It has increased dramatically and sharply … within the span of one or two days.”

The decline in the kyat’s value has led to rising commodity prices across the country. 

“Prices have tripled, with daily increases of 50 or even 100 kyats for some products,” a  housewife in Dagon Myothit (North) township in the Yangon region said.  “Prices are rising almost every day.”

When RFA contacted an official at the junta-run Central Bank to inquire about restoring the kyat’s record-low value, an official only responded that relevant officials were working to address the issue.

RFA was unable to reach junta spokesman Major General Zaw Min Tun to ask about the declining currency rates. 

Translated by Aung Naing and Kalyar Lwin. Edited by Matt Reed.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Burmese.

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

D’Vontaye Mitchell died last month in Milwaukee after he was violently pinned to the ground by four security guards outside the Hyatt Regency Hotel, just a few minutes from where the Republican National Convention would take place. Ben Crump, a civil rights attorney who is representing the family, says that the killing is “just inexplicable,” with nobody charged for Mitchell’s death so far. “You have a video of a man being killed. You have witnesses who have given statements. But yet you’re saying you still have to investigate? Why is it different when it’s a Black victim laying dead on the ground?”

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

On Friday Justin Trudeau rewarded his most openly hostile caucus member with the newly created position. This gives Housefather a bigger platform to promote Israel’s holocaust in Gaza.

A longstanding advocate of apartheid, Housefather has spent the past nine months working assiduously to expand Canadian assistance to Israel’s bloodletting, which has led to 50,000 killed, 100,000 injured and the destruction of most buildings, water sources and agricultural land in Gaza.

Housefather has repeatedly smeared protesters as antisemitic and clamoured for the violent suppression of students protesting Israel’s genocide. In late November, Housefather made a solidarity trip to Israel where he met former Israeli military leaders and other officials. Previously Housefather met a Knesset member from Itamar Ben Gvir’s far right party Simcha Rothman and boasted about the Trudeau government’s voting record at the United Nations being more anti-Palestinian than Stephen Harper’s.

After Canada voted with most of the world for a ceasefire at the United Nations in December, Housefather repeatedly condemned his own government to the media. A month earlier, the Montréal MP also criticized Trudeau for his statement opposing the killing of babies. At the time CBC’s At Issue panel reported that Liberal MPs (presumably Housefather) had privately threatened to quit the party if Trudeau called for a ceasefire.

After a March 18 parliamentary vote that represented a small step towards lessening Canada’s complicity in Israel’s genocide, Housefather’s threat was formalized. In a rare form of public dissent, Housefather said he was considering quitting the Liberal caucus because of the vote and his party’s MPs applauding NDP foreign affairs critic Heather McPherson who introduced the motion. He created a media spectacle for a week, concluding it with a column in the National Post about being a proud “Zionist”.

If another MP attempted a similar move on most any other issue they would have been expelled from the Liberal caucus. Instead, the rogue genocidal Jewish supremacist is rewarded.

At the end of January, Housefather was made Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and then parlayed his threat to leave the party over his “hurt” feelings into the appointment as Special Envoy to Promote Israel’s holocaust in Gaza.

Housefather’s appointment further confirms what I argued in a 2016 article that led to efforts to cancel my ability to speak publicly. I wrote, “‘Anti-Semitism’ may be the most abused term in Canada today. Almost entirely divorced from its dictionary definition — “discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews” — it is now primarily invoked to uphold Jewish and white privilege… Without an intervention of some sort, the Jewish community risks having future dictionaries defining “antisemitism” as “a movement for justice and equality.”

Since that time the antisemitism apparatus has grown significantly.

As Special Adviser on Jewish Community Relations and Antisemitism, Housefather will work with Trudeau’s Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism Deborah Lyons (who hosted a pizza party for Canadians fighting in Israeli military while ambassador). They’ll seek to enforce the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s anti Palestinian definition of antisemitism, which the Liberals adopted and have made all Canadian Heritage grantees adhere to. They’ll work with the publicly funded Holocaust museums and monuments, which use Nazi crimes to enable Israel’s holocaust in Gaza today.

They’ll probably also coordinate with the University of Ottawa’s Special Advisor on Antisemitism and a host of other similar new ventures, such as Canadian Women Against Antisemitism, campaigning in support of Israel’s horrors in Gaza.

History will not judge the antisemitism industry kindly. Claiming oppression to justify apartheid and genocide is odious and honest people know it.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Yves Engler.

Forecasts suggest that this year’s upcoming “danger season” has its own catastrophes in store. On May 23, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season could be the most prolific yet. A week earlier, they released a seasonal map predicting blistering temperatures across almost the entire country. 

One driving force behind these projections are the alternating Pacific Ocean climate patterns known as El Niño and La Niña, which can create huge shifts in temperature and precipitation across the North and South American continents. After almost a year of El Niño, La Niña is expected to take the reins sometime during the upcoming summer months. As climate change cooks the planet and the Pacific shifts between these two cyclical forces, experts say the conditions could be ripe for more extreme weather events.

“We’ve always had this pattern of El Niño, La Niña. Now it’s happening on top of a warmer world,” said Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Berkeley Earth, an environmental data science nonprofit. “We need to be ready for the types of extremes that have not been tested in the past.”

During an El Niño, shifting trade winds allow a thick layer of warm surface water to form in the Pacific Ocean, which, in turn, transfers a huge amount of heat into the atmosphere. La Niña, the opposite cycle, brings back cooler ocean waters. But swinging between the two can also raise thermostats: Summers between the phases have higher than average temperatures. According to Hausfather, a single year of El Niño brings the same heat that roughly a decade of human-caused warming can permanently add to the planet. “I think it gives us a little sneak peek of what’s in store,” he said.

Since the World Meteorological Organization declared the start of the current El Niño on July 4, 2023, it’s been almost a year straight of record-breaking temperatures. According to the National Centers for Environmental Information, there’s a 61 percent chance that this year could be even hotter than the last, spelling danger for areas prone to deadly heat waves during the summer months. An estimated 2,300 people in the U.S. died due to heat-related illnesses in 2023, and researchers say the real number is probably higher.

All this heat has also settled into the oceans, creating more than a year of super-hot surface temperatures and bleaching more than half of the planet’s coral reefs. It also provides potential fuel for hurricanes, which form as energy is sucked up vertically into the atmosphere. Normally, trade winds scatter heat and humidity across the water’s surface and prevent these forces from building up in one place. But during La Niña, cooler temperatures in the Pacific Ocean weaken high-altitude winds in the Atlantic that would normally break up storms, allowing hurricanes to more readily form. 

“When that pattern in the Pacific sets up, it changes wind patterns around the world,” said Matthew Rosencrans, a lead forecaster at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center. “When it’s strong, it can be the dominant signal on the entire planet.”

This year’s forecast is especially dangerous, as a likely swift midsummer transition to La Niña could combine with all that simmering ocean water. NOAA forecasters expect these conditions to brew at least 17 storms big enough to get a name, roughly half of which could be hurricanes. Even a hurricane with relatively low wind speeds can dump enough water to cause catastrophic flooding hundreds of miles inland.

“It’s important to think of climate change as making things worse,” said Andrew Dessler, climate scientist at Texas A&M University. Although human-caused warming won’t directly increase the frequency of hurricanes, he said, it can make them more destructive. “It’s a question of how much worse it’s going to get,” he said. 

Over the past 10 months, El Niño helped create blistering temperatures in some parts of the United States, drying out the land. Drought-stricken areas are more vulnerable to severe flooding, as periods without precipitation mean rainfall is likely to be more intense when it finally arrives, and soils may be too dry to soak up water. As desiccated land and soaring temperatures dry out vegetation, the stage is set for wildfires.

While the National Interagency Fire Center expects lower than average odds of a big blaze in California this year, in part due to El Niño bringing unusually high rainfall to the state, other places may not be so lucky. The agency’s seasonal wildfire risk map highlights Hawaiʻi, which suffered the country’s deadliest inferno partly as a result of a persistent drought in Maui last August. Canada, which also experienced its worst fire season last summer, could be in for more trouble following its warmest ever winter. This May, smoke from hundreds of wildfires in Alberta and British Columbia had already begun to seep across the Canadian border into Midwestern states. 

“We are exiting the climate of the 20th century, and we’re entering a new climate of the 21st century,” Dessler said. Unfortunately, our cities were built for a range of temperatures and weather conditions that don’t exist anymore.

To get ready for hurricanes, Rosencrans said people who live in states along the Gulf Coast and Atlantic Ocean should go to government disaster preparedness websites to find disaster kit checklists and advice about forming an emergency plan. “Thinking about it now, rather than when the storm is bearing down on you, is going to save you a ton of time, energy, and stress,” he said.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why this summer might bring the wildest weather yet on Jun 3, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Sachi Kitajima Mulkey.

Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, issued the following statement in response:

“New Hampshire was able to indict Kramer because the robocalls aimed to deter people from voting. Almost every state makes it illegal to undertake fraudulent efforts to deceive people into not voting. New Hampshire also makes it illegal to impersonate a candidate on a telephone call.

“However, most political deepfakes misrepresenting candidates and aiming to defraud voters will not run afoul of existing law – unless lawmakers and regulators act. Eighteen states and counting have passed laws to prevent political deepfakes. Congress is moving slowly on the issue, with no guarantee of action. And the Federal Election Commission is, at best, slow walking the issue.

“The New Hampshire deepfake robocall should have been a wakeup call to policymakers across the country. Most hit the snooze button, but today’s indictment is the alarm sounding again: The American people need you to act now to prevent deepfake chaos in November. No one benefits from deepfake chaos and the problem is preventable. If policymakers fail to act, we should expect chaos to ensue.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

The post Promises to Women Health Activists in India Not Yet Met Despite ASHA Strike Suspension appeared first on Project Censored.

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

Speaking at a pre-poll rally in the southern Rajasthan town at the height of election frenzy in India, Modi brought out the most trusted weapon in his repertoire — anti-Muslim hate. He said, “When they (the Congress) were in power, they said that Muslims had the first right to the properties of the state. This means that they would collect these properties and give them to the ones who have more kids (insinuating Muslims). They will give it to the ghusapethyon (infiltrators). Do you want to give away your hard-earned money to the intruders? This is what the Congress manifesto says — the amount of gold owned by our mothers and daughters will be measured, collected and distributed. They will distribute this wealth among those… the Manmohan Singh government had said Muslims had the first right to the properties. These urban naxals will not even spare the mothers and sisters or their mangalsutra. They will go that far.”

In one sweeping statement that hinges on several falsehoods, the Prime Minister of the country referred to the around 200 million Muslims living in India as ‘infiltrators’ and mocked them as “those who have more kids.” If the sheer crassness of the phrase “jinke zyada bachche hain‘ coming from a head of state was shocking, equally stunning was how he indulged in scaremongering at the expense of Muslims by painting them as the devil out to devour the wealth of the country’s majority Hindus. Not just any wealth, but ‘mangalsutra’, a necklace worn by Indian brides, which carries religious connotations. All this, because he sees electoral gains in alienating Muslims and deepening the already vicious communal divide in the country that he ‘serves’ as Prime Minister, or, as he once called himself, the ‘pradhan sevak’.

Textbook Example of Hate Speech

If one goes by the Hate Crime and Hate Speech (Combat, Prevention and Punishment) Bill, 2022, introduced in the Rajya Sabha by the Modi government a couple of years back, Modi’s speech is a textbook example of hate speech, the likes of which his government apparently wants to curb.

Point No. 5 in Chapter II of the proposed Bill, which defines the offence of hate speech and hate crime, states, “5. (1) Any person:— (a) who intentionally publishes, propagates or advocates anything or communicates to one or more persons in a manner that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to harm or incite harm or promote or propagate hatred, based on one or more of the following grounds:
(i)religion, (ii) race, (iii) caste or community, (iv) sex, (v) gender, (vi) sexual orientation, (vii) place of birth, (viii) residence, (ix) language, (x) disability, or (xi) tribe;
or (b) who intentionally distributes or makes available an electronic communication which that person knows constitutes hate speech as referred in clause (a) through an electronic communications system which is— (i) accessible by any member of the public; or (ii) accessible by, or directed at, a specific person who can be considered to be a victim of hate speech;
or (c) who intentionally, in any manner whatsoever, displays any material or makes available any material which is capable of being communicated any which that person knows constitutes hate speech as referred in clause (a), which is accessible by, or directed at, a specific person who can be considered to be a victim of hate speech, shall be guilty of an offence of hate speech.”

If one is to extract the relevant portion from the above passage, one finds that the proposed Bill says that any person who intentionally publishes, propagates or advocates anything or communicates to one or more persons in a manner that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to harm or incite harm or promote or propagate hatred based on religion (among other categories) shall be guilty of an offence of hate speech.

Prime Minister Modi, thus, is beyond any reasonable amount of doubt, guilty of the offence of hate speech since his words demonstrated a clear intention to promote and propagate hatred against a community based on religion.

Modi’s Hate Speech Fits Snugly Into BJP’s Communal Agenda

When one puts Modi’s remarks into perspective, one finds that they fit snugly into the larger scheme of BJP’s communal political agenda of establishing the narrative that Hindus in India are in danger from Muslims. BJP leaders on political platforms, their spokespersons on TV and Right Wing trolls and propaganda outlets on social media have, over the last decade or so, religiously carried out this one task with single-minded dedication — painting the Muslim person next to you as a threat.

PM Modi has at times put on the mask of inclusivity, for example when he spoke of Haj quota at a rally in Aligarh on Monday (the day after the Banswara rally). “I had requested the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to increase the Haj quota for our Muslim brothers and sisters in India. Today, not only has India’s Haj quota increased but visa rules have also been made easier. The government took a very important decision,” he said. However, that mask has come off on several occasions, particularly at times when his party has stood to benefit from a communal polarization.

For example, at a public rally in Dumka ahead of 2019 Vidhan Sabha polls in Jharkhand, Modi said that those who had been protesting against CAA were identifiable by their clothes. “Yeh Congresswale aur uske saathi… halla macha rahe hain, toofaan khara kar rahe hain. Aur unki baat chalti nahin hai to aag janee phaila rahe hain. Jo aag laga rahe hain, TV pe unke jo drishya aa rahe hain, yeh aag lagaane vaale kaun hain, woh unke kapdon se hi pata chal jaata hai.” (Congress and its allies are creating a chaos, raising a storm. And if that fails, they are spreading a fire. From the visuals on TV, those setting the fire can be identified by their clothes).” Dumka was one of the most important seats in the state as the chief minister candidate of the Congress-JMM-RJD alliance, Hemant Soren, was fighting from that seat as well as from Barheit.

Again, ahead of the 2019 general elections, at a rally in Nanded on April 6, Modi played the Muslim card, when he slammed Rahul Gandhi for fighting the elections from Wayanad, by saying, “Congress ke naamdaar ne microscope lekar bharat mein ek aisi seat khoji hai jahan par woj muqabala karne ki taakat rakh sake. Seat bhi aisi jahan par desh ki majority minority mein hai. (The Congress leader used a microscope to find out a safe seat for himself to contest from and selected a seat where the majority is in minority).”

Even earlier, as Gujarat chief minister in 2002, months after the pogrom, Modi had called Muslim relief shelters baby-making factories. At a public meeting as part of his Gaurav Yatra in Mahasena district on September 9, Modi stated, “What brother, should we run relief camps? (referring to relief camps for riot affected Muslims). Should I start children producing centers there, i.e relief camps? We want to achieve progress by pursuing the policy of family planning with determination. We are 5 and our 25 !!! (Ame panch, Amara panch, referring the Muslim polygamy). On whose name such a development is pursued? Cant Gujarat implement family planning? Whose inhibitions are coming in our way? Which religious sect is coming in the way? Why money is not reaching the poor? If some people go on producing children, the children will do cycle puncture repair only?”

Hence, for those who have carefully observed Modi’s rise to power in Gujarat and then in national politics, Sunday’s remarks — in which he attacked Congress and Muslims by putting them in the same bracket — are bound to bring a sense of deja vu.

At the moment, the Modi-led Union Cabinet does not have a single Muslim minister. BJP does not have a single Muslim MP in its nearly 300-strong Parliamentary party. It has fielded only one Muslim candidate in the entire country for the upcoming general elections.

Global Media Deplores Modi’s Hate Speech

Several major global media outlets have published reports on Modi’s Banswara address and used the phrase ‘hate speech’ in their headlines. These include The Washington Post, CNN, Al Jazeera, Time Magazine, BBC, among others.

The Washington Post article headlined “Modi accused of ‘hate speech’ toward India’s Muslims in election rally” states that Modi in his speech “seemingly cast Muslims as taking the wealth of other Indians.”

CNN writes in its report, “India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been accused of delivering Islamophobic remarks during an election rally Sunday, triggering widespread anger from prominent Muslims and members of the opposition.” The report also draws attention to the fact that the speech was in violation of the election code of conduct. “The code states politicians must not appeal to voters based on “caste” and “communal feelings.” Activity which “may aggravate differences or create mutual hatred or cause tension” between communities and religions, is also not allowed. CNN has contacted the ECI for comment.”

In a hard-hitting report, Al Jazeera writes that Modi’s alleged hate speech might signal a shift in his campaign strategy. “Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is facing accusations of spreading hatred against Muslims after controversial comments on Sunday wherein he equated the community to “infiltrators” and peddled anti-Muslim tropes in the middle of the country’s general elections.” This report, too, points out that the election commission has received complaints against Modi for the Banswara speech, and adds, “But independent watchdogs and activists have long complained that election officials act too slowly, if at all, especially when cases involve powerful officials in the government.”

Time Magazine writes, “The remarks appeared to be a reference to harmful tropes that accuse Muslims of displacing Hindus by building large families. The comments have been widely criticized by opposition leaders and prominent Muslim figures and triggered anger worldwide… India is home to some 1.44 billion citizens. Modi’s BJP party has been criticized for viewing the Muslim community, which includes asylum seekers and refugees from Bangladesh and Myanmar, as outsiders. Critics say Modi’s comments build on a divisive campaign of Hindu nationalism has been associated with the ruling BJP, which is expected to claim a third consecutive term.”

The BBC reported on Modi’s speech and remarked that “Rights groups say that they face discrimination and attacks, and have been forced to live as “second-class” citizens under Mr Modi’s rule – an allegation the BJP denies.”

The New York Times used the strongest terms while criticizing Modi for his remarks. It writes, “The direct language used against the country’s largest minority was a contrast to the image Prime Minister Narendra Modi presents on the world stage.” The report also states, “Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday called Muslims “infiltrators” who would take India’s wealth if his opponents gained power — unusually direct and divisive language from a leader who normally lets others do the dirtiest work of polarizing Hindus against Muslims.”

The Guardian put Modi’s comments into perspective by saying “Since the BJP came to power in 2014 with a Hindu nationalist agenda, it has been accused of policies and rhetoric that targeted minorities, particularly Muslims, who have allegedly been subjected to rising violence and persecution both by the state and by right-wing Hindu vigilante outfits. The BJP has only one Muslim candidate running in this election.”

The post Hate speech by Modi: At Banswara, PM villainizes Muslims, yet again appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Indradeep Bhattacharyya.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

More than two months after authorizing subpoenas for key figures in the Supreme Court’s ethics controversies, Senate Democrats have yet to issue them. The delay has caused outside activists to demand that Democrats press ahead with their investigation.

On Nov. 30, the Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve subpoenas for Republican donor Harlan Crow and conservative legal activist Leonard Leo after the two men had refused to voluntarily provide all the information requested by the committee about gifts for Supreme Court justices.

“Both Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow are central players in this crisis,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said at the time. “Their attempts to thwart legitimate oversight efforts of Congress should concern all of us.”

But in an interview last week, Durbin told ProPublica that he had not yet issued the subpoenas to Crow and Leo. Questioned about the timing or what issues remained to be worked out, he said only: “Still working on it.”

The decision to authorize subpoenas came in response to stories by ProPublica that detailed how, for decades, Crow had paid for lavish vacations for Justice Clarence Thomas. In 2014, Crow purchased Thomas’ mother’s home in Georgia. Crow even paid private school tuition for Thomas’ nephew, whom the justice said he was raising “as a son.”

Thomas did not disclose the vacations, real estate purchase and tuition assistance on his annual financial disclosure forms. After ProPublica’s reporting, the Supreme Court adopted its first-ever ethics code, though it’s not clear if and how it will be enforced. Thomas has said that he did not need to disclose the free vacations and that he didn’t report the real estate sale because he misunderstood the rules. Crow has said he has never tried to influence Thomas on any matters.

ProPublica also revealed that Leo, the influential lawyer and Federalist Society co-chairman, arranged a luxury fishing trip to Alaska for Justice Samuel Alito in July 2008 that Alito also did not disclose. Alito flew to Alaska on a private plane provided by Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire and major conservative funder.

Several years after the trip, one of Singer’s companies had a case before the Supreme Court that Alito ruled on. Singer’s company won by a near-unanimous ruling. Alito says he did not need to disclose the trip or recuse himself from the case. Singer has said he never discussed his business with the justice.

Leo is considered one of the most powerful figures in U.S. politics, an architect of the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority and now the leader of a billion-dollar dark-money fund aimed at reshaping American culture and government.

Leo and Crow did not respond to requests for comment.

In the recent interview, Durbin would not give a reason for the delay in sending the subpoenas. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a Judiciary Committee member and vocal supporter of court reform, told ProPublica that the committee’s November authorization vote gave Durbin leverage to get information from Crow and Leo without legally issuing the subpoenas.

“The authority to have the chairman issue those subpoenas has put him in a much-improved negotiating position,” Whitehouse said. “I’ll just leave it at that.”

It’s not uncommon for congressional committees to authorize a subpoena and then ultimately obtain information voluntarily through negotiations, according to a Congressional Research Service analysis. However, Leo said in November that he would not cooperate with the Judiciary Committee’s efforts, which he called an “unlawful campaign of political retribution.” A Crow spokesperson said then that the committee’s inquiry was “invalid” but added that Crow had offered “extensive information” to the committee and “remains willing to engage with the committee in good faith, just as he has consistently done throughout this process.”

Christina Harvey, executive director of the anti-corruption group Stand Up America, said that the Judiciary Committee’s efforts to address the Supreme Court’s ethics controversies would remain “incomplete” if the committee didn’t get all the information it requested. “Crow and Leo’s insistence that the law does not apply to them should not intimidate or deter Judiciary Democrats,” Harvey said.

If Durbin’s committee did eventually issue the subpoenas to Crow and Leo and the two men still refused to comply, the Judiciary Committee could seek to enforce the subpoenas by filing suit in federal court. It could also make a criminal contempt certification to the Justice Department for the refusal to cooperate with a legal subpoena.

A civil suit would require a vote in the Senate to approve the legal action, and the Democrats might not win it with their slim majority. The suit itself could take months or years to play out, as happened in other recent subpoena fights.

Alex Aronson, executive director of the advocacy group Court Accountability and a former legal counsel to Whitehouse, told ProPublica that making a criminal contempt certification typically requires a majority vote in the House or Senate. But Aronson said that such a vote wasn’t legally required under his interpretation of the relevant statute, and that Durbin’s committee should consider all options to get the information it seeks.

“There is too much at stake for Chair Durbin to capitulate to Republican stonewalling and bad faith now,” he said. “I’m hopeful and confident he will see this through.”

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by by Andy Kroll.

After some 200 countries at COP28 agreed to phase down fossil fuels, nations are facing pressure to block new oil and gas projects. A growing number of Democrats are calling on President Biden to stop massive new fossil fuel developments, and climate groups in the U.K. filed a lawsuit to block a massive new oilfield in the North Sea, saying it violates obligations to target net-zero carbon emissions. “Without means of implementation, these are just words,” says The Guardian’s senior climate reporter Nina Lakhani, who covered COP28. She says the COP28 deal continues a tragic history of powerful, polluting countries denying their responsibility for climate change and refusing to support those most impacted. “Equity is not anywhere to be seen in that final document that we got.”

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

• Israel’s bombardment of Gaza continues; aid for Gaza has yet to cross Egypt border.
• Hamas releases American hostages Judith Raanan and her 17-year-old daughter Natalie.
• Jim Jordan booted from speakership nomination after House Republicans rejected his bid for the speakership for the third time.
• Former Donald Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro pleads guilty to a felony, just as jury selection was getting underway in his trial on charges accusing him of participating in efforts to overturn Trump’s loss in Georgia’s 2020 election.
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has predicted a wet winter for the southern states and a warmer-than-usual winter for northern states.

• Several mayors from cities across the country took part in a roundtable conversation this week to discuss what municipalities can do to combat the ongoing homelessness crisis.

Judith Raanan, right, and her 17-year-old daughter Natalie are escorted by Israeli soldiers and Gal Hirsch, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s special coordinator for returning the hostages, as they return to Israel from captivity in the Gaza Strip. (Government of Israel via AP Photo)

The post Israel’s bombardment of Gaza continues; aid for Gaza has yet to cross Egypt border; two Americans held hostage by Hamas released – Friday, October 20, 2023 appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

With little fanfare, the European Union has launched a huge climate experiment. On October 1, the EU kicked off the initial phase of a Europe-wide tax on carbon in imported goods. This marks the first time a carbon border tax has been tried at this scale anywhere in the world. Europe’s experiment could have ripple effects across the entire globe, pushing high-emitting industries to clean up their production and incentivizing other countries to launch their own carbon taxes. It may well end up being the most important climate policy you have never heard of.

“This is an excellent example of wild ambition on the regulatory front,” says Emily Lydgate, a professor of environmental law at the University of Sussex. Nothing approaching the scale or ambition of the EU’s carbon border tax exists anywhere in the world, although California has a very limited version of its own carbon tax on energy imports. “It’s very novel to roll this out in such a big market. The perturbations throughout the system are pretty huge.”

So how does it work? The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is essentially an import tax on carbon-intensive products, such as cement, steel, fertilizer, and electricity. Since 2005, the EU has levied a carbon price on highly polluting industries within its own borders, requiring manufacturers to buy credits to cover the carbon they emit or risk heavy fines. Businesses receive a certain number of free allowances, but to emit more carbon they must pay around €80 ($75) per metric ton for the privilege—one of the highest carbon charges anywhere in the world.

You might sense the problem with this system. China, for instance, doesn’t levy a carbon tax on steel, which means it can undercut the EU steel industry. And EU companies looking for a good deal will likely turn to countries with the cheapest steel prices. The CBAM is an attempt to level this playing field. Under the new regime, an importer of Chinese steel will have to purchase carbon credits that correspond to the same rate as steel produced in the European Union. That is the crux of the CBAM—making sure that the carbon in high-emission products is priced at the same rate, no matter where those products are produced.

“The EU is trying to export its price on carbon to the rest of the world,” says Marcus Ferdinand, chief analytics officer at carbon consultancy Veyt. For now, the CBAM is still in a soft-launch stage. From October 2023 to December 2025, importers of goods covered by the CBAM will need to declare emissions in those products, but they won’t have to buy any carbon allowances. From 2026, however, importers will have to buy CBAM certificates to cover these “embedded” emissions.

Even this transition stage is a pretty big deal, says Lydgate. The new rules will initially apply to imports of cement, iron, steel, aluminum, fertilizers, electricity, and hydrogen. This means that all of these importers and manufacturers will have to start quantifying their emissions to make sure they don’t fall foul of the CBAM. “Just by being the first mover on this, the EU is catalyzing this huge upskilling of firms around the world in having to do something which they haven’t really had to do on a mandatory basis,” says Lydgate. Other high-emission goods, such as crude petroleum, synthetic rubber, and other metals, may be added in later versions of the CBAM.

Read Next

Pope Francis calls for rapid decarbonization, ‘abandonment of fossil fuels’

Joseph Winters

Of course, the EU isn’t being entirely altruistic. When the European Commission proposed the carbon border tax, it leaned heavily on fears of “carbon leakage”—the idea that polluting industries in the EU would move to countries with less stringent carbon regulations—or of EU products being replaced by imports from elsewhere. The European steel industry has felt the pressure of carbon prices for years, says Adolfo Aiello, deputy director general of the European Steel Association, Eurofer, although he says it’s still far too early to tell whether the CBAM will be a net positive for the steel industry. “At this stage we are neither positive nor negative, we are simply agnostic.”

The border tax will provide an incentive for other countries to model their own carbon prices after the EU emissions trading plan. One of the core features of the CBAM is that carbon prices don’t need to be paid twice, so if a steel manufacturer pays for carbon credits in their own country, the EU importer will not pay for additional credits. In effect, this incentivizes non-EU governments to set carbon prices in their own countries so that they can reap the benefits of taxing carbon, rather than let that money escape to the EU. Of course, businesses could also invest in cleaner ways of producing their goods to avoid these added costs. At the moment, EU member states must put at least half of the revenues from carbon credits back into plans to reduce carbon emissions or improve climate resilience.

If all of this sounds like a fiddly way to push the dial on climate change, well, it is. The CBAM is a good example of the Brussels Effect—a term coined by Columbia Law professor Anu Bradford back in 2012. The phrase describes the subtle way the EU wields its influence: by setting new regulatory standards that nudge the rest of the world to keep pace. The CBAM is ostensibly about protecting EU industry from being undercut by overseas producers, but it will also encourage other countries to set up European-style emissions trading structures and decarbonize highly polluting industries. Just under a quarter of the world’s population lives in places with a price on carbon, but many of these markets are limited to just a few industries. The EU’s initiative, on the other hand, covers around 45 percent of the bloc’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

“What we are going to see is a potential mushrooming of other carbon markets,” says Ferdinand. “It’s going to make it more visible, and it’s also going to lift carbon pricing up the political agenda for places that probably didn’t pay that much attention before.”

If this works as planned, the CBAM should also have the long-term effect of pushing other countries to increase their environmental ambitions in step with Europe. At the moment, the EU hands out a large number of free carbon credits to highly polluting industries, but those allowances are slowly being phased out and should cease altogether by 2034. Reducing those allowances should keep the carbon price high and incentivize businesses in Europe and beyond to find ways to reduce their carbon footprints.

Not every country is thrilled by the prospect of the carbon border tax. In June, China’s ambassador to the World Trade Organization said the CBAM was “regrettable” and would unfairly penalize developing countries. The border tax might also put least-developed countries in an unenviable position. These countries are responsible for a tiny fraction of historic emissions, but they often have relatively high-carbon industries, compared to more developed nations. This essentially puts some countries at a big trading disadvantage, which might put the CBAM on the wrong side of WTO rules that say traders must not discriminate against similar products from different trading partners.

“It’s difficult to come up with a watertight legal defense for it,” says Lydgate. But because the CBAM is so far-reaching and novel, no one is exactly sure what impact it will have or how countries and businesses will respond. “In policy, it’s not only the framework, but it’s the material and the design of the measure that makes it effective or not,” says Aiello. The EU’s carbon border tax could herald one of the most significant environmental shifts of the decade, but its impact—as always—will come down to the details.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The EU just kicked off its biggest climate experiment yet on Oct 15, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Matt Reynolds, WIRED.

The post Is It Fascism Yet? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Rob Urie.

Last month was the hottest September on record by 0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit). That may not sound like a big deal, but as far as heat-record margins go, it’s massive — or, as climate scientist Zeke Hausfather posted on the social networking site known as X, “absolutely gobsmackingly bananas.” 

“We’ve never seen a record smashed by anything close to this margin,” Hausfather told Axios. “It’s frankly a bit scary.”

September’s average global temperature was 0.9 degrees C higher than the recent historical average and 1.8 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. The month’s mercury measurements — which come from the Japan Meteorological Agency and Europe’s Copernicus Climate Change Service — were more fitting for mid-summer. Though summer isn’t what it used to be either: July was the hottest month in 120,000 years, with the hottest week and day ever recorded, all during the hottest summer known to humankind. 

While scientists say climate change, fueled by the combustion of fossil fuels, is to blame for the planet’s long-term warming trend, this year’s gobsmacking record-smashing got a nudge from a cooling La Niña weather pattern giving way to a strong El Niño in the Pacific Ocean, which formed over the summer. El Niño typically has a stronger warming effect in its second year and could ascend to ‘super’-status levels by winter, according to a recent experimental forecast by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. 

Even though this year’s warming is consistent with predictions, the September record still came as a shock to some researchers. “I’m still struggling to comprehend how a single year can jump so much compared to previous years,” Mika Rantanen, a climate researcher at Finnish Meteorological Institute, posted on X. 

September’s unmatched heat showed up with near-100-degree weather in the eastern United States and Europe and a freakishly warm end to winter in South America, where highs hit 110 degrees F. Much of Europe was still sweltering under unseasonable heat at the start of October. 

At the bottom of the planet, the extent of winter sea ice in Antarctica hit an all-time low — 1 million square kilometers less ice than the previous record, set in 1986.

“It’s not just a record-breaking year, it’s an extreme record-breaking year,” Walt Meier, a senior scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, told Reuters.

The searingly hot temperatures have, at least temporarily, put the planet beyond the 1.5 degrees C rise in warming that global leaders had pledged to avoid as part of the Paris Agreement. But what matters most, scientists say, is keeping the planet from sustaining that level of warming over many years. Luckily, that’s still possible, the International Energy Agency recently announced. To succeed,countries will need to triple renewable energy capacity and double energy efficiency improvements by 2030, according to the IEA. Demand for climate-warming fossil fuels is expected to peak this decade.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Earth just set another heat record — by the largest margin yet on Oct 4, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Max Graham.

The Flying Fijians survived a scare and hung on to win 17-12 against a spirited Georgia in Bordeaux on Sunday morning, giving them hope of a quarterfinal spot at the Rugby World Cup in France.

Having trailed 9-0 at halftime, the Fijians scored two tries in the second half through captain Waisea Nayacalevu and replacement winger Vinaya Habosi.

Georgia gave everything they had and held their own against their much-fancied opponents, even charging for the tryline in the dying minutes of the game.

• READ MORE: South Africa beat Tonga 49-18
• Other RWC2023 reports

More than 42,000 fans could not have asked for a better game as the two teams battled it out on the field.

Both sides had predicted a tough clash.

It turned out to be that way — Georgia dominated the first half, Fiji came back in the second.

Head coach Simon Raiwalui said they lost the plot in the second half and the message was for the team to get back to the basics and play their own game.

‘On the back foot’
“All credit to Georgia, they played really well in the first half. We were a bit on the back foot, we didn’t help ourselves with the basics,” he told the media after the game.

“It was a bit of getting back to basics, we were giving too much ball away in contact. I think we were lucky to [only] be down 9-0 at half-time. It was real tight to the end.

“We said let’s get back to the basics. Get an advantage line, hold the ball and put some pressure back on them.”

Raiwalui said he was not looking too far beyond Portugal next week and they would review the game.

“I am really just worried about Portugal coming up, we have to take care of business,” he said.

“Prepare well and put on a performance. If we look too far beyond that we are going to slip over.

“Georgia played well, they were very clinical in the first half, their forwards were very strong and their back three were very dangerous on the counter-attack.

‘Chased too much’
“The good thing about this team, in the past we may have chased the game too much. This team, behind the leadership of Waisea [Nayacalevu], wasn’t a tidy game but came away with the result.”

Nayacalevu said he kept telling the players to keep fighting when they were down.

“Today we didn’t perform to the best of our ability, credit to Georgia. Coming into this week, we knew Georgia would come with physicality and speed,” he said.

“First half we made a lot of mistakes, I told the boys to keep fighting, next job. Second half we executed a few plays, stuck in the fight and we got the result.

“What game! My feelings, I’m pretty exhausted. The game was tough, shout out to Georgia for a tough game today.

“I am proud of the boys, what a team effort today we didn’t slack off, we kept fighting. I told the boys we have to keep fighting. For the record, we want to be a history-making team and that is our goal. We will take it step by step.”

Georgia led at half-time
Georgia led Fiji 9-0 at half-time, thanks to three successful penalties from winger Davit Niniashvili.

A courageous defence by Georgia and no retreat style of approach saw them create havoc on the field, forcing the Flying Fijians into errors.

The Fijians could not connect with their lineout with hooker Sam Matavesi over-throwing a couple of throw-ins.

While they were able to hold their own in the scrums, the Fijians were not able to put their phases together.

Georgia on the other hand applied the pressure from the opening whistle and combined physical power upfront with flair and speed along the backs.

Luke Tagi lost the ball over the line as the Fijians went on attack midway into the first spell, after they opted for a tap penalty in front of the posts.

Earlier halfback Simione Kuruvoli had sent the ball wide and short from a penalty attempt.

Semi Radradra, captain Waisea Nayacalevu, Ilaisa Droasese and Selestino Ravutaumada made some good breaks but disruptive defence from Georgia thwarted any hopes of those moves scoring points.

While the Georgians worked as a group on attack and had support players around the ball carriers Fiji made the mistake of individual players on attack too many times over.

Fiji had better second half
Radradra received a yellow card early in the half after play resumed and the Fijians were reduced to 14 men for 10 minutes.

Nayacalevu finished off a move in the corner with his try before Frank Lomani kicked from the sideline for the extra two points.

That saw Georgia lead 9-7.

Then Lomani kicked a penalty before replacement Habosi danced his way past would be tacklers after taking the off-loads from Levani Botia who had found his way through the Georgian defence.

At 17-7 the Georgians kept coming back into the game and Luka Matkava kicked a penalty to close the gap to 17-12.

Man of the Match Levani Botia said he was proud of the team coming back the way they did.

“So proud of the boys, I think we struggled in the first half. We gave away opportunities but we came back in the second half,” he said.

Keeping the ball alive
“I think one thing about us Fijians is we like to keep the ball alive, we trust each other, I saw my teammate and I understand I have to give the opportunity. Rugby is rugby, you don’t know what will happen.”

Georgian coach Levan Maisashvili said he was proud of his team despite the loss.

“Obviously I cannot be happy about the final result today, but I am really proud of my team. They did their best, they gave everything, it was not enough to win the match,” he said.

“Unfortunately in the first half we had to change some players, there were many injuries and in the second half as well, so that had a huge impact and we paid the price.

“The first half tactically was pretty well done, there were a couple of individual mistakes when we couldn’t follow our tactic to go straight forward, and to kick the ball out, to put more pressure on the opponent, but every time we had this tactic we had great results in the first half.”

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.

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Ryan Grim.

On the night of July 23, 2018, water flowed over the collapsed dam at the Xe Pian-Xe Namnoy hydropower project in Champassak province, inundating 19 villages and killing 71 people. Some 14,400 residents were displaced by the floodwaters, forcing them to take shelter in hastily erected huts in temporary relocation villages.

Since the disaster, the government has pushed ahead with building more dams as part of its plan to make Laos the “Battery of Southeast Asia” by selling the generated electricity to neighboring countries. The Ministry of Energy and Mines has said it will build 100 of the dams by 2030 and signed memorandums of understanding for 250 other hydroelectric projects.

While authorities move on with new development, survivors told Radio Free Asia they are still struggling to pick up the pieces of their former lives, half a decade later.

“We haven’t received our final round of compensation from the government,” said a villager from Sanamxay district who, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on condition of anonymity, citing fear of reprisal.

“It almost seems as if they are waiting for us to die before they give it to us. One thing’s for sure – we always have to pay our electricity bills on time, but they haven’t compensated us.”

Another survivor of the collapse said that in the five years since the disaster, international NGOs have provided assistance with food, education, and health care.

“But help from the government and the dam developers has either come too late or not at all,” he said.

Survivors acknowledge that while their situation has improved slightly over the past five years, they are still struggling daily to earn enough money for basic necessities such as rice.

Still ‘making adjustments’

RFA spoke with an official from Sanamxay who said that the government and PNPC have built some infrastructure in resettled villages including roads, access to electricity and running water, and schools.

The official, who declined to be named because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said that in 2021, Attapeu province allocated 1,545 hectares (3,820 acres) of land to 852 families from four villages.

But he acknowledged that the government’s sixth and final round of compensation – which is supposed to account for the value of villagers’ assets that were washed away in the flooding, including jewelry, vehicles, and other personal property – has yet to be delivered.

“[The central government] is making adjustments to the amount that will be delivered, but they’ve delayed it many times already,” said the official, who declined to be named because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

Survivors received 835,000 kip (US$55) from the dam operator as compensation for each relative who died in the disaster. The PNPC also provided a monthly stipend for living expenses of 250,000 kip (US$17) per survivor initially, but now only orphans receive the stipend, which will run out when they reach 18 years old.

A PNPC official claimed that the company has already provided compensation to affected villagers of more than 835 billion kip (US$47.7 million). Speaking on condition of anonymity, he vowed that all resettlement projects would be completed by 2025 and that survivors could expect “better lives than before.”

Meanwhile, those who received land in 2021 told RFA that it is located on hillsides and lacks access to water for irrigation, making it unsuitable to grow rice and other crops.

UN experts have called on the Lao government to rectify the situation, calling it “shameful” that in the years since the collapse, many survivors continue to live in unsanitary temporary shelters, without access to basic services, while awaiting the compensation promised to them.

They have also expressed concerns that survivors and human rights defenders may face retaliation for bringing attention to their issues, which happened in 2019, and that at least two other dams in the area show similar signs of impending failure as the PNOC did, prior to its collapse.

Unhappy with resettlement

For those survivors who have received homes in resettlement villages, many told RFA they are unhappy with their situation. 

The homes are in various stages of completion and often lack sitting rooms or plots for gardening, and are located far from their farms in their former villages, making it difficult to tend to their crops and livestock, they said.

“Some villagers choose to live at their old farms and let their sons and daughters occupy the resettlement homes,” said one survivor.

“The local health clinic is not finished yet, so when people get sick they have to travel to a hospital in town,” he added.

The conditions for those who are still living in what they expected would be temporary shelters are significantly worse. They must endure oppressive heat, as well as a lack of clean water and sanitation – all while struggling to earn a living.

As months have become years, with no end to their situation in sight, many have chosen to leave and try to start anew on their own, despite the enormous costs of building new homes.

One survivor who said he was unsurprised that residents of the resettle villages have started to leave, rather than waiting for government assistance that may never come, calling life in the resettlement villages “unbearable.”

Translated by Sidney Khotpanya. Edited by Joshua Lipes and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Lao.

The new Ocean Wind 1 project, developed by the Danish energy company Ørsted, will be built about 15 miles off the coast of New Jersey and generate 1,100 megawatts of electricity — enough to power 380,000 homes. It is the third proposal of its kind approved by the Biden administration, following Vineyard Wind off the coast of Massachusetts and South Fork Wind east of Long Island, New York. 

“Since Day One, the Biden-Harris administration has worked to jump-start the offshore wind industry across the country,” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a press release announcing Wednesday’s decision. “Today’s approval for the Ocean Wind 1 project is another milestone in our efforts to create good-paying union jobs while combating climate change and powering our nation.”

The project advanced despite significant controversy over offshore wind development in the last year. Some Republican lawmakers argue the industry will harm tourism, and they blame it for a recent spate of whale deaths. But officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration say there is no evidence linking the fatalities to offshore turbines. The federal agency instead points to other, more likely causes, such as climate change and collisions with ships. 

Congressional Republicans and local nonprofits opposed to these projects have launched campaigns and lawsuits to halt their development — many of them backed by oil and gas companies. Fast Company traced funding for efforts to stop Vineyard Wind and other offshore wind projects to the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Caesar Rodney Institute. Both receive money from the likes of ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Koch industries.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration calls offshore wind a key source of clean energy and jobs as the nation transitions off fossil fuels. President Biden has set a national goal of installing 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030, enough to power 10 million homes. The federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management hopes to review 16 projects by 2025. 

Department of Energy officials say expanding the sector will take advantage of the stronger, more consistent winds that blow over seas, where the rapidly maturing technology produces more electricity per turbine than onshore farms. While the U.S. only has two up and running, one near Rhode Island and the other off the coast of Virginia, the United Kingdom, China, Germany, and other nations heavily rely on them. 

The federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management estimates that during its development and three years of construction, Ocean Wind 1 will create more than 3,000 jobs. Along the Gulf coast, the offshore wind industry has already become an “economic lifeline” for workers displaced from the declining oil and gas sector. According to the Department of Energy, an offshore operation in the Gulf could create 4,500 jobs. 

Ocean Wind 1 is expected to become operational by late 2024 or early 2025. 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Offshore wind just got its biggest boost yet on Jul 7, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Akielly Hu.

It has been six months now, but I have to make a strange admission. I miss the laughs I used to get over the pseudo-authoritative pronouncements of Fiji’s former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum (pictured).

I recall that he got a bit over-excited in January this year. That was when he decided to lecture the new government on “constitutionalism” and “rule of law”.

This was apparently without any reflection on how he and his FijiFirst party government had performed by the rule of law standards on which he was pontificating.

• READ MORE: Read other Richard Naidu columns

But in the last few days he decided to debate Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica on the FijiFirst party’s 2022 financial accounts, apparently insisting that FFP was not insolvent.

This was never going to be an equal contest. Kamikamica is a chartered accountant. Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, well — he isn’t.

You don’t need to be an accountant to read a balance sheet — or to understand the simple definition of insolvency.

It’s not hard. You are insolvent if you “cannot pay your debts as they fall due”. You can find the accounts of all the main political parties on the Fiji Elections Office website.

More cash than others
FFP’s balance sheet (see image) says it has cash and term deposits of more than $270,000 in the bank.

That’s pretty good. It’s actually more cash than all the other political parties combined. But FFP also has debts (called, in accountant-speak, “payables and accruals”).

These come to well over $1.6 million. Once you add and subtract all the smaller stuff, FFP is left with net liabilities of just over $1 million.

In other words, that’s $1 million that FFP, even if it sold everything it owns, still could not pay to its creditors.

That $1.6 million in debts “fell due” months ago. And FFP could not pay them as they fell due. So FFP is insolvent.

Why pretend otherwise? Luckily for FFP, there isn’t a simple legal way for a creditor to wind up a political party for not paying its debts. Presumably FFP’s unpaid suppliers have learned that bitter lesson a bit late.

Learning lessons
But we are all learning lessons about FFP. Six months ago it was all-powerful. Its leaders sat in taxpayer-funded government offices and did (pretty much) whatever they wanted.

They regularly lectured the rest of us on all of our failings and all the things we were doing wrong. They exuded competence. Fast forward to June 2023.

The same FFP — which previously ran a government that spends $4 billion a year — had been suspended because it couldn’t prepare its own accounts on time.

The deadline for submitting political party accounts is March 31 each year. That’s in the Political Parties Act. Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum presumably knew that because, after all, he “wrote the law”.

FFP’s accounts were not submitted by March 31. The Acting Supervisor of Elections (in stark contrast to her predecessor) did not fire off a suspension letter one day later.

She gave FFP (and some other political parties) an extension of time to put in their accounts. Six weeks later, FFP still had not filed its accounts.

And at that point even the most reasonable supervisor is entitled to be annoyed. That was when the suspension letter went out. Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s reaction at the time was the usual legalistic bluster unsupported by the facts. FijiFirst, he said, had not been afforded “due process and natural justice”.

Failed to meet deadline
He did not elaborate. And what could he say? His party had been given a six-week extension of time and still not met the deadline under the law he had himself drafted. And then we found out.

FFP was deeply in debt — and presumably too embarrassed to tell the rest of us. If it hadn’t been suspended, we would probably still not know.

What else can we learn from the accounts of the former ruling party? We can see from its balance sheet that it began 2022 with (cash and term deposits) more than $860,000 in the bank.

That’s the sort of money other politicians could only dream of. At that time the People’s Alliance and National Federation Party, between them, had less than $20,000.

However FijiFirst then went on to spend $4.2 million — or more accurately, it ran up debts of that amount, and now it has to find $1.6m to pay off those debts.

That is because FFP raised only $2.2 million in donations. I say “only” — but that $2.2 million was twice as much as the three parties now in government could collect.

More lessons
There are other, bigger, lessons to learn from all of this — lessons about money and politics. What was FFP thinking as it threw around the cash in the 2022 election campaign?

Who would spend $1.6 million they didn’t have? The answer — a party that thought that, as long as it could win, the cash would keep rolling in.

No political party in Fiji’s history has ever had millions of dollars to spend.

And no political party in Fiji has ever cashed in on its political power as cynically as FFP did in the past 10 years. It was FFP that made the laws on electoral funding for political parties.

Companies were not allowed to contribute — only individuals and only up to $10,000 each. All donors had to be publicly disclosed — this included someone who put $2 in a bucket during a soli.

SODELPA leader Viliame Gavoka famously commented on how the laws required his party to issue a receipt for selling a $1 roti parcel. FFP of course, did not have to bother with the small stuff.

Soli? Roti parcels? Why bother when you can just wait for the $10,000 cheques? And the cheques rolled in — with embarrassing enthusiasm.

Early donor lists
Many of us saw the early FFP donor lists when they were published. Prominent business families fell over themselves to write their $10,000 cheques.

Of course, these cheques were from “individuals”. Those individuals were company directors, their spouses and even their under-age children, even if those children (and probably some of the spouses) didn’t have bank accounts to write cheques from.

You would hear from other, less enthusiastic, business people about invitations to FFP fund-raisers. You went — and you took your chequebook with you — because if you didn’t, well…

One business man complained to me: “If I pay, I get to talk to them — but they don’t do anything about my business problems anyway.”

Fiji is not the first country to encounter unhealthy problems about money and politics.

These create challenges in every democracy. In Fiji’s so-called “true democracy”, the rules about who donated money were supposed to be transparent.

The Political Parties Act originally required the Supervisor of Elections to publish the names of people who donated to political parties. But as FFP’s donors squirmed with discomfort under the spotlight of social media, in 2021 FFP quietly changed the law — buried, of course, in one of those Bills that would be rushed to Parliament on two days’ notice and rushed through the infamous Standing Order 51.

The law change meant that those party donor lists still had to be disclosed to the Supervisor of Elections — but the Supervisor no longer had to publish them in the newspapers.

Climate of political fear
Of course, in the climate of political fear that FFP actively promoted, that created a separate problem.

The ruling party always collects the millions. But the opposition parties would have to work much harder to collect their cash because no one with any serious money wanted to be identified on those disclosure lists as giving money to the opposition.

Because, even though the Supervisor of Elections no longer had to publish those lists, any member of the public could still inspect them.

Most Fiji citizens might not know that. But the one person who would know that was the general secretary of FFP — also the minister for elections, attorney-general and minister for economy.

Now, however, for the first time since 2014, we can do something about our money-and-politics laws.

Those laws need to be reviewed, with a strong eye on the lessons of the past.

But the most critical lesson is probably not about those laws. It is about the climate of fear that enabled one political party to raise millions of dollars to keep itself in power while keeping all of its opponents out of cash.

Some good news?
Finally, for diehard FijiFirst supporters — a small spot of good news in those accounts. Apparently FFP still has 6120 “promotional sulu” in stock.

The sulu, according to the accounts (Note 11), have been “fully expensed”. This is because “realisable value cannot be determined with reasonable accuracy.” This is the way accountants say: “We don’t think anybody wants them so we can’t put any value to them.”

Perhaps to show their loyalty, FFP’s fans could buy the sulu to pay off the $1.6 million debt. This would cost only $270 per sulu. Just thought I’d try to help.

Richard Naidu is a Suva lawyer who writes a regular independent column for The Fiji Times. He has enough sulu.

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

So far, the heat has reportedly been particularly punishing on animals, with hundreds of pigs perishing in Jiangsu, central China, fish dying in southwestern China’s Guangxi province and Chengdu suffering shortages of rabbit heads – a much-loved Sichuanese street snack.

Peak electricity demand was recorded in late May, a month earlier than last year, while in Beijing the temperature is expected to nudge at 40 Celsius (104 Fahrenheit) next week and Shanghai recorded a 150-year-record-high temperature for the month on May 29 at 36.7 C (98 F), eclipsing the previous high of 35.7 C (96.3 F) recorded in May 1876.

Was last year a warm-up?

Last summer, RFA reported that industry in the Yangtze Region, including semiconductor manufacturer Foxconn, was forced to scale back on production amid a heatwave and drought, in which the authorities prioritized residential electricity supply so that people could run air-conditioning.

“The Yangtze River delta has never experienced such high temperatures since historical records began, and high temperatures like this are accompanied by drought,” Jiangsu-based current affairs commentator Zhang Jianping told Radio Free Asia at the time.

The unseasonably hot weather in China comes on the heels of record-breaking temperatures in Southeast Asia during April and May, as RFA reported.

In Thailand, Myanmar, Vietnam and Laos, the heat led to deaths and hospitalizations, closed schools and caused losses to farmers and business-owners. 

The region saw the mercury reach record highs everywhere, with Thailand’s capital, Bangkok, experiencing its hottest day on record on April 6, 2023, when the city recorded a temperature of 40.2 C (104.4 F).

The heat index, which measures how hot it feels when humidity is factored in, reached a staggering 50.2 C (122 F) in some areas of Bangkok, according to local news reports.

The ‘worst heatwave in history’

Some experts are already calling it the “worst heatwave in history” and it is not just affecting Southeast Asia and China; records are even being broken in high-latitude Siberia, CNN reported.

Jalturovosk in Siberia had its hottest day in history on June 3 at 37.9 C (100.2 F), according to Maximiliano Herrera, who tracks extreme temperatures across the globe.

Experts blame it on global warming, El Niño, atmospheric blocking patterns and urban heat island effects.

But a likely return of El Niño, a weather pattern caused by warming of sea-surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, is of particular concern this year, according to the World Meteorological Organization.

In an update on May 3, the WMO warned that there is a 60% chance for a transition to El Niño during May-July 2023, increasing to about 70% in June-August and 80% between July and September.

The organization added that the development of an El Niño will most likely lead to a new spike in global heating and increase the chance of breaking temperature records. It advised the world to prepare for the impacts, such as increased rainfall, droughts, heat waves and storms.

China and beyond

Back in China, local reports are already warning of possible hardships to come, chiefly focusing on the possibility of a food security crisis involving essential crops such as wheat, which has already been affected by heavy May rain and high temperatures, and rice, which Chinese agricultural experts are warning will likely be affected by high temperatures and drought conditions.   

On June 2, China’s Meteorological Agency held a press conference, in which experts urged local governments to prepare for the coming heat, warning that densely urban areas are likely to be vulnerable to the so-called “urban heat island effect” and rural areas suffering from heatwaves will also likely experience droughts, the combination of which can devastating to crops.

Bloomberg reports that China has so far avoided any large-scale power cuts, but shoppers are spurning daytime shopping for night markets and beer and ice cream sales have risen.

Air conditioner sales are up 95% from last year, according to local Chinese-language news reports.

A UN report in March warned that “every increment” of global warming will escalate multiple and concurrent hazards.

According to scientists, the past eight years have been the eight warmest on record globally, with 2016 being the hottest on record. 

The World Meteorological Organization says that is primarily due to the “double whammy” of a powerful El Niño event and human-induced warming from greenhouse gasses.

Edited by Mike Firn and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Christopher Taylor for RFA.

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on June 2, 2023.

Photo: Nathan Howard/Bloomberg via Getty Images

This weekend, President Joe Biden is expected to sign a bill raising the federal debt limit for approximately two years. It passed the House 314-117, with 149 of the yes votes coming from Republicans and 165 from Democrats. The bill passed the Senate 63-36. Forty-four Democratic senators voted for it, along with 17 Republicans and two independents.

The New York Times concludes that, compared with previous Congressional Budget Office forecasts, it will cut federal spending by $55 billion in 2024 and $81 billion in 2025. Moody’s Analytics estimates that, thanks to the bill, there will be 120,000 fewer jobs at the end of 2024 than there would be without it. According to the CBO, cuts to Internal Revenue Service enforcement will lead to tax revenues falling to the degree that it will actually increase the deficit on net, thereby accomplishing the exact opposite of the bill’s purported aim.

All this — plus the fact that the Biden administration is rewarding the GOP for taking the world economy hostage, thereby guaranteeing Republicans will do it again as soon as possible — is the bad news. The good news here is that it’s bipartisan!

Why didn’t the Democrats raise the debt limit without spending cuts during the lame duck period after the 2022 midterms, when they still controlled the House and Senate? They may not have had the votes, but we’ll never know because they didn’t even attempt it. As Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer explained at the time, “The best way to get it done — the way it’s been done the last two or three times — is bipartisan.”

Then, when the debt limit bill passed the House with the cuts, a White House statement celebrated that the vote was “bipartisan” in the headline and then mentioned it two more times in three paragraphs of text. 

This posturing makes sense, since Americans constantly say we love the concept of bipartisanship. A 2021 CNN poll found that 87 percent of us feel attempts at bipartisanship in Congress are a good thing. This includes 92 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans, thereby making this sentiment about bipartisanship itself bipartisan.

So now’s a good time to look back at some of the other great bipartisan achievements of the past few decades. An optimist will see these as all-too-rare occasions when Democrats and Republicans put their differences aside, reached across the aisle, and worked together to get things done. A realist may suspect these are examples of both Democrats and Republicans wanting to screw regular people in service of their donors, and only having the courage to do it because the other side was willing to hold their hand and jump with them — so neither party could be blamed. 

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000

In the last days of the Clinton administration, the House passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act 292-60. One hundred and fifty-seven Democrats voted for it, together with 133 Republicans. The Senate passed it under unanimous consent.

By exempting many financial instruments from regulation, this extremely bipartisan bill helped lay the groundwork for the 2008 financial meltdown and the subsequent near-depression. In 2013, Bill Clinton privately spoke about his desperate attempts to stop the act from passing. This was all lies: His administration had enthusiastically lobbied for it.

2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force

Public Law 107-40, signed on September 18, 2001, by President George W. Bush, is certainly the most bipartisan act of the 21st century. The bill gave Bush the authorization “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” Every Democrat and Republican voting said yes to it with the solitary exception of Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee of California.

The executive branch predictably seized this power to go hog wild. The 2001 AUMF has been used as justification by Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump for military action in 12 countries including Afghanistan, plus drone strikes and regular bombing in seven. 

About 3,000 people died on September 11, 2001. All in all, the war on terror is estimated to have caused 4.5 million deaths, a ratio of 1,500 to 1.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Two hundred and fifteen Republicans and 81 Democrats voted in October 2002 to give Bush the power to invade Iraq. In the Senate, 48 Republicans and 29 Democrats voted yes.

Bush fired Larry Lindsey, the director of his National Economic Council, for saying the U.S. might have to spend as much as much as $200 billion on the war. It will eventually cost America at least $2.4 trillion.

American Jobs Creation Act of 2004

In October 2004, Congress passed a bill including a corporate tax holiday — i.e., an opportunity for multinational U.S. companies that had been holding cash overseas (so it couldn’t be taxed) to bring that cash back to America at an ultra-low tax rate. It was totally bipartisan, with 207 Republicans and 73 Democrats voting for it in the House, plus 44 Republicans and 25 Democrats voting yes in the Senate.

The rationale for the bill, as is clear from its name, was that this was going to create tons of great American jobs. In reality, lots of the money (from this and other Bush tax cuts) went to bigger paychecks for corporate executives. Meanwhile, the prime beneficiaries of the bill actually cut their U.S. payroll. Bill Clinton later said that Bush “got so mad that he signed the five and three-quarter percent repatriation bill and, he said, none of it was reinvested.”

Budget Control Act of 2011

The GOP previously used the debt limit to take the economy hostage in 2011, after taking back control of Congress during the 2010 midterms during Obama’s first administration. The crisis was resolved by the passage of the Budget Control Act, with 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voting for it in the House. In the Senate, more Democrats (47) voted yes than Republicans (27). 

With the economy still reeling from the quasi-depression of 2007 to 2009, the $1 trillion-plus in cuts to discretionary spending mandated by the Budget Control Act kept the economy weak and millions of Americans desperate for years to come. The Budget Control Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act each deserve a kind of half-sack for the presidency of Donald Trump.

So there you have it: five triumphs of bipartisanship. Depending on how you calculate it, together these alone have cost the U.S. perhaps $15 trillion, in addition to causing an incalculable amount of human suffering, here and overseas. The debt limit bill can’t hope to be in this league, of course. But there’s always more bipartisanship to come tomorrow.

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Jon Schwarz.

The post House Tackles Congressional Corruption – Yet Again appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Eve Ottenberg.

It’s a near certainty that one of the next five years will be the world’s hottest on record, the organization said, the result of human-caused climate change colliding with an “El Niño” weather pattern that warms the globe. Marked by hotter surface waters in the tropical Pacific Ocean, El Niño is replacing La Niña, a cooler pattern that has actually tempered the heat of the last three years.

The meteorological association cautioned that the world could see temperatures that are 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than preindustrial times, with a two-thirds chance that at least one of the next five years will breach that threshold. Holding global temperatures below 1.5 degrees has been a rallying point for island nations that threaten to get swallowed by rising seas, and became an aspirational goal of the Paris Agreement that roughly 200 countries negotiated in 2015. While temporarily hitting the 1.5-degree mark is different from seeing an average of 1.5 across many years, the extra heat from El Niño, on top of climate change, could usher us closer to this hotter future. 

Every tenth of a degree that the planet warms pushes it toward worrisome tipping points, such as the disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Surpassing the 1.5C mark could also inch environments closer to irreversible feedback loops: The Amazon, for example, might transform from a rainforest into a grassy savanna, releasing the vast stores of carbon held in its trees.

Even in the short term, a strong El Niño could be devastating for sensitive ecosystems like the Great Barrier Reef. The last year the world saw a powerful El Niño, 2016, was the hottest on record. It ushered in the most devastating coral bleaching event in history, with more than half of corals dying in the northern part of the reef, and brought drought and fires to the Amazon, killing off nearly 2.5 billion trees.

In bad news for public health, El Niño’s arrival could fuel the spread of diseases carried by mosquitoes, bacteria, and toxic algae. Malaria and dengue have spiked during past El Niño years. Warmer temperatures also allow disease-carrying pests like mosquitoes and ticks to expand into new ranges.

The world has already warmed an average of 1.2 degrees C (2.2 degrees F) since the Industrial Revolution initiated the widespread use of fossil fuels, hotter than at any point in the last 125,000 years. Most estimates say that the longer-term average of 1.5C won’t arrive until at least the early 2030s, though the meteorological organization said there’s a 1 in 3 chance the five-year average temperature could top that threshold. It puts things into perspective: Decades from now, the string of hot years the world has recently witnessed will be looked back on as some of the century’s coldest.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline It’s near certain that the next 5 years will be the hottest yet on May 17, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Kate Yoder.

U.S. Sen. John Fetterman on Thursday demanded accountability for Norfolk Southern and other railroad companies following Wednesday night's freight train derailment in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania.

Local media report nine out of more than 200 cars on a Norfolk Southern train went off the track just before midnight in the town of New Castle, 50 miles north of Pittsburgh and about 10 miles east of the Ohio border.

"This has got to end."

Fire officials said that salt, soybeans, and paraffin wax—used to make candles—spilled from the derailed cars, none of which were carrying hazardous materials. A statement from Norfolk Southern said no one was injured in the accident.

New Castle is also located about 20 miles from East Palestine, Ohio, the site of the fiery Norfolk Southern derailment and chemical burn disaster that spilled cancer-causing dioxin and vinyl chloride into the air, soil, and waterways in the vicinity of the accident.

"It's the same shit, different day from Norfolk Southern," Fetterman (D-Pa.) said in a statement on Thursday afternoon.

"It's time to finally hold Norfolk Southern and the big rail companies accountable for the harm they have caused in East Palestine and Darlington Township, and the harm they continue to cause with this dangerous, reckless, and selfish behavior," the freshman senator continued. Darlington Township, Pennsylvania is located about nine miles east of East Palestine.

"I'm thankful that no one was hurt and no toxic material was spilled in New Castle, but this derailment looks way too similar to the ones we've said can't happen again," Fetterman said. "This has got to end."

"I'm proud that my bipartisan bill, the Railway Safety Act, advanced out of committee yesterday," added Fetterman, who has also introduced the Railroad Accountability Act.

"This bill will finally enact commonsense rail safety procedures that would have prevented last night's derailment," the lawmaker asserted of the measure advanced Wednesday. "It's time to pass this bill on the floor and finally hold Norfolk Southern accountable."

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

New York Times (5/3/23): “Right-wing media outlets, Christian organizations and business groups…argued that the legislation would harm all news media, including conservative outlets, and lead to an increase in frivolous and costly lawsuits.”

FAIR (3/1/23) and other free speech advocates expressed concern when Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis pushed for a bills that would redefine who a “public figure” is, thus challenging the longstanding Sullivan v. New York Times case that protects journalists from defamation lawsuits.

DeSantis is used to getting his way on most things these days, on everything from cloaking his travel records (NBC, 5/3/23) to taking over the state’s higher education institutions (AP, 4/26/23; Chronicle of Higher Education, 5/3/23). But not this time, as the New York Times (5/3/23) reports that the bills are hitting fierce opposition in the Florida legislature and is likely to fail.

The resistance came not from the liberals DeSantis loves to bash, but from the same right-wing media outlets that often support his administration. The reason? Efforts to intimidate liberal and centrist media by eviscerating the Sullivan standard would also impact right-wing media. The landmark case holds that public figures must prove that the accused acted with reckless disregard for the truth in order for a defamation case to hold up.

The Times:

“The minute conservative media outlets started catching wind of this it was stopped real quick,” said Javier Manjarres, the publisher of the Floridian, a conservative site that is usually supportive of the governor’s agenda. Last month, he wrote an article that said the legislation would be “an irreparable self-inflicted political wound” if Mr. DeSantis were to sign it.

“They were trying to hit the liberal media and didn’t realize it would be a boomerang that would come back around right at them,” said Brendon Leslie, the editor in chief of Florida’s Voice, a digital outlet that is favored by Mr. DeSantis. He and others worried that the legislation, if passed, would encourage lawsuits that could put many conservative publications out of business.

Reasons to be worried

Fox‘s $787 million settlement with Dominion (NBC, 4/18/23) was one of a number of high-profile libel payouts by right-wing media in recent years.

Such right-wing outlets have a reason to be worried, because even with the Sullivan standard, they have been vulnerable. Most famously, Fox News settled an enormous lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems over the network’s false statements that the company helped fix the 2020 presidential election for Joe Biden (FAIR.org, 4/20/23). And who can forget Alex Jones’ legal troubles over his lies about the Sandy Hook shooting at Infowars (FAIR.org, 8/18/22)?

There are a few other affairs. A former US Department of Agriculture official “settled her long-running defamation lawsuit against the late conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart” (National Law Journal, 10/1/15). A “House information-technology staffer who became the center of fevered right-wing conspiracy theories about espionage and extortion” sued “the Daily Caller, alleging the conservative website defamed him and his relatives” (Daily Beast, 1/28/20).

The New York Post “settled a high-profile defamation suit over the paper’s infamous ‘Bag Men’ cover in the midst of the Boston Marathon terrorist bombing,” in which the paper ran a cover photo of two people in “attendance at the marathon” who “were holding bags in the picture,” thus tying them to the attack (Washington Post, 10/2/14).

Media clout on the right

Defending Fox against Dominion’s libel claims, William Barr (Wall Street Journal, 3/23/23) put in a good word for Sullivan.

The Dominion lawsuit against Fox, especially, rattled right-wing commentators, as even former Trump administration Attorney General William Barr took to the Wall Street Journal (3/23/23) to invoke Sullivan as protection for Fox. The setback for the DeSantis agenda demonstrates just how much influence the right-wing media have on policy; he’s not a random Republican, but a leading presidential hopeful, and the governor of a large state whose attacks on public institutions and gender rights are leading a nationwide movement. Democratic lawmakers are unlikely to check in with, say, MSNBC before deciding whether it’s safe to follow California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s political lead.

But if conservative legislators are reluctant to buck the media their voters rely on for political information, the urge to revisit the Sullivan case is still strong in conservative judicial circles (FAIR.org, 3/26/21), and it’s unlikely that will subside. The right’s broad agenda to crush labor unions and public education includes a decimation of media outlets that spotlight corporate and governmental misdeeds.

The New York Times (4/19/23) reported:

In recent court cases, Republican politicians suing the news media for defamation—including the former Senate candidates Don Blankenship and Roy Moore and the former congressman Devin Nunes—have explicitly pushed judges to abandon the Sullivan ruling.

Aside from trying to win their cases, the apparent goal was to present the Supreme Court with a vehicle to reconsider Sullivan.

“That is definitely the strategy,” said Lee Levine, a prominent First Amendment lawyer who, until his retirement, regularly represented the New York Times and other news organizations. “It will continue.”

Tearing down precedents

Justice Clarence Thomas (New York Times, 7/2/21) says we shouldn’t continue “to insulate those who perpetrate lies from traditional remedies like libel suits.”

The current Supreme Court conservative majority is certainly not shy about tearing down the liberal precedents set by the Warren Court. Floyd Abrams, one of the US’s most famous press lawyers, told the podcast So to Speak (2/23/23) that the judges who want to overturn Sullivan “are offended by…the press reportage about really public matters, which I think Sullivan was absolutely right about and has served the public well.” Floyd doesn’t believe the court has the five votes needed to undo Sullivan yet. But there are at least two justices—Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch—that have their eye on the case, and possibly one or two more.

And next year’s presidential election could make a huge difference. “Former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, two favorites of many Fox News viewers, have advocated for the court to revisit the [Sullivan] standard,” AP (3/6/23) reported. The call to constrain press freedom is still ringing loud among right-wing voters.

Floyd said “if former President Trump were reelected and he got a chance…to appoint some more justices, sure, [Sullivan] would be at risk.”

The post DeSantis’ Anti-Press Bills Seem Dead, but Don’t Celebrate Yet appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Ari Paul.

Scientists say the EPA was too optimistic, and some research shows that the congressional mandate did more climatic harm than good. A 2022 study found that producing and burning corn-based fuel is at least 24 percent more carbon-intensive than refining and combusting gasoline. The biofuel industry and Department of Energy vehemently criticized those findings, which nevertheless challenge the widespread claim that ethanol is something of a magic elixir. 

“There’s an intuition people have that burning plants is better than burning fossil fuels,” said Timothy Searchinger. He is a senior researcher at the Center for Policy Research on Energy and the Environment at Princeton University and an early skeptic of ethanol. “Growing plants is good. Burning plants isn’t.”  

Given all that, not to mention the growing popularity of electric vehicles, you’d think ethanol is on the way out. Not so. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continue to tout it as a way to win energy independence and save the climate. The fuel’s bipartisan staying power has less to do with any environmental benefits than with disputed science and the sway of the biofuel lobby, agricultural economists and policy analysts told Grist.  

“The only way ethanol makes sense is as a political issue,” said Jason Hill, a bioproducts and biosystems engineering professor at the University of Minnesota.

President Biden’s landmark climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, outlined the biggest federal biofuels spending package in 15 years. Last week, its ethanol subsidies became a sticking point among House Republicans debating a bill over the federal debt limit. Eight Corn Belt Republicans staunchly, and successfully, opposed a proposal to raise the nation’s debt ceiling and curb federal spending because it would have repealed tax credits for the ethanol industry.  

Regulators remain equally enamored. The ethanol industry is celebrating the EPA’s recent announcement that, for the second straight year, it will waive a ban on summertime sales of E15 gasoline. The fuel, which contains as much as 15 percent ethanol, has long been prohibited during warm months amid concerns that it creates smog. And with automakers embracing EVs, the ethanol industry is lobbying the Biden administration to extend federal subsidies to ethanol-based “sustainable” aviation fuel. Ethanol producers also plan to tap into carbon capture subsidies to build pipelines that would carry carbon from refineries to underground storage tanks. 

A lot of this stems from the fact the U.S. produces more corn than any other country — 13.7 billion bushels last year — and about a third of that, worth some $20 billion, is used to produce ethanol. While biofuels can be made from all kinds of organic material, from soybeans to manure, about 90 percent of the nation’s supply comes from corn. No wonder the ethanol boom has been called the Great Corn Rush. 

And a rush it has been. Although the 15 billion gallons of ethanol mixed into gasoline each year falls well short of the 36 billion that President Bush hoped for, the number of refineries in the United States has nearly doubled to almost 200 since his presidency. Between 2008 and 2016, corn cultivation increased by about 9 percent. In some areas, like the Dakotas and western Minnesota, it rose as much as 100 percent in that time. Nationwide, corn land expanded by more than 11 million acres between 2005 and 2021.

“A quarter of all the corn land in the U.S. is used for ethanol. It’s a land area equivalent to all the corn land in Minnesota and Iowa combined,” said Hill. “That has implications. It’s not just what happens in the U.S. It’s what happens globally.”

As more land at home has been tilled to grow corn for ethanol, commodity prices have gone up worldwide. In turn, growers seeking higher profits have embraced crops used to make biofuels. The expansion of soybeans and palm, in particular, has led to deforestation throughout the tropics, particularly in Indonesia and Brazil. It has also absorbed land that could be used to grow food or capture carbon. “We basically opened the floodgates,” Searchinger said.

Ethanol has failed to meet its climate promises for a number of reasons, which some researchers believe are mostly related to land use. Growing more corn means using more nitrogen fertilizer, which emits nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas. Since 2007, fertilizer use tied to ethanol production has risen nationwide by up to 8 percent, according to the 2022 study denounced by the industry and DOE. More fields set aside for ethanol feedstocks also means less land for carbon-storing trees, climate-friendly food crops, or truly renewable energy sources like solar panels, which are far more efficient than plants at converting sunlight to power.  

Read Next

Midwestern leaders want to sell ethanol in summer despite smog risks

John McCracken

Still, many lawmakers, federal agencies, and the biofuel industry continue to insist that ethanol is better for the climate than gasoline. A 2021 Department of Energy report found that the greenhouse gas emissions from grain-based ethanol can be as much as 52 percent lower than gasoline. With more climate-friendly growing practices, that could reach 70 percent, according to a 2018 study funded by the Department of Agriculture. 

“There’s been a lot of talk — and a lot of confusion — recently about corn ethanol’s carbon footprint,” Renewable Fuels Association CEO Geoff Cooper wrote in a blog post last year. He criticized what he called a “flawed and misleading approach to examining ethanol’s carbon footprint” and said that corn ethanol has a 46 percent smaller footprint than gasoline. That number comes from a 2021 analysis by researchers at Harvard University, Tufts University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

But ethanol critics say such calculations don’t accurately account for the entire ethanol production cycle, from cultivation to processing, and underestimate the emissions caused by land-use changes associated with ethanol. 

“The studies that look at the full life cycle of production and use of ethanol suggest that it results in increased greenhouse gas emissions relative to gasoline. [And] it doesn’t lead to lower emissions that affect air quality, say particulates. In fact, they’re higher,” Hill said. 

Aside from ethanol’s environmental consequences, questions linger over its future in an increasingly electrified world. In 2011, there were 22,000 EVs on U.S. roads. Ten years later, there were 2 million. One in five cars sold around the world this year will be electric, the International Energy Agency reported last week. As electric vehicles become more popular, “you are going to see the ethanol industry looking for ways to sustain itself, and probably sustainable aviation fuel is going to be their big push,” said Aaron Smith, an agricultural economist at University of California, Davis and a co-author of the 2022 study critical of ethanol.

The Department of Energy says ethanol jet fuel could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 153 percent compared to its petroleum counterpart. Hill said it has the same problems as the ethanol used to power cars. “There’s no reason to think they’re any different,” he said. 

Yet two years ago, the Biden administration set a goal of producing 3 billion gallons of sustainable aviation fuel by 2030. Just last month, two House Democrats — Julia Brownley of California and Brad Schneider of Illinois  — re-introduced the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act, which would authorize $1 billion of federal funds to spur growth in the industry. To qualify for the subsidies, fuels must emit 50 percent fewer greenhouse gasses during their life cycle than oil-based jet fuel. Only time will tell if the new use of ethanol delivers the future the fuel’s supporters have long promised. 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Despite what you may think, ethanol isn’t dead yet on May 5, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Max Graham.

Raising the Finish flag at NATO headquarter on April 4th (Photo: NATO).

In an April 4^th ceremony in the vast and bleak plaza in front of NATO’s $1 billion, 250 square meter Brussels headquarters conducted in the presence of Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and U. S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken alongside other heads-of-state, diplomats, military commanders, and reporters, the Finnish flag was raised to take its place with the colors of the alliance’s other thirty member nations.

As the SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe) band played the Finnish national anthem in Brussels, the country’s flag was hoisted simultaneously at the ACT (“Allied Command Transformation: NATO’s Warfare Development Command,” according to the alliance’s website) centers in Mons, Belgium an hour south of Brussels and, across the ocean from which the bloc takes its name, in Norfolk, Virginia.

The blue Nordic-Christian-cross-on-a-white-background luffed in the north Atlantic breeze. The band was a crisp as the Finnish colors.

With all the flags atop their poles, it was time for the NATO hymn.

This curious piece of music was composed way back in 1989, by a few stubborn souls still thought of as the year when the Cold War was won by the West. The NATO anthem’s music was penned by Lieutenant Colonel André Reichling, longtime director of the Luxembourg Military Band. This vaunted ensemble was for decades largely funded by American money, but suffered withering budget cuts when that music-and-NATO-hating fiend, Donald Trump, occupied the White House. Reichling did not live long enough to see the tide of musical battle turn, dying at the age of sixty-four, two months before the American election of 2020 that toppled Trump from the presidential podium.

Reichling’s hymn and was only elevated to its current status as official anthem of NATO five years ago in the midst of Trump’s war on NATO. These strains tried, if limply, to call in the calvary to save the alliance from Trump’s attacks.

Reichling’s composition cleaves to the proven qualities of many a righteous anthem: fully-scored contingent of winds haloed with piccolos; stately and unwavering progress through its musical mission launched with a descending bass line that proclaims past deeds and future glory; and just the right number of canny harmonic feints that suggest originality and moral backbone without straying from the path of sanctioned musical strategy.

But this badge of honor brings with it a conundrum: if the West was victorious in 1989, wasn’t Reichling’s tune to be heard as an elegy not just for the Evil Empire but also for NATO itself?

Reichling’s self-nullifying NATO hymn (then still unofficial) was preceded twenty years earlier by a NATO song that had been disseminated to school children and otherwise hawked for propaganda purposes. That multi-lateral shanty deployed a folk-like melody concoted by a German captain and fitted with doggerel—sometimes prayerful, sometimes saber-rattling—that was, appropriately enough, the joint effort of a pair of Dutch and American officers. The song begins by establishing NATO’s territorial reach: “From Nova Scotia to Istanbul, from Bergen to Key West, / Standing together as beloved Free West.”  Leave it to army poets to rhyme West with West and call it poetry.

Soon after that the arsenal of freedom is inventoried: “Airplanes and missiles, and ships, too, / Guarding our boundaries to defend our rights.”

Yet another unofficial NATO hymn of the nearly-hot Cold War 1950s had “poetry” by the ardent British anti-communist Godfrey Lias, a soldier and later a journalist:

May God who rules o’er earth and sky
Cleanse our fair world from fear.
Let freedom’s banner rise on high
And violence disappear.
Build up the power of right;
Bid all the free unite.
Let NATO grow in might
And put its foes to flight.

Reichling’s heavenly strains, solemn and seemingly timeless, stem from the same traditions of Christian nineteenth-century hymnody that inspired Lias’s might-makes-right rhymes.

Since its composition Reichling’s hymn has been performed at countless NATO events, the Finland’s accession to the alliance the most recent one of note.

The nations’ flags are arrayed in a semi-criclethat, with each new member grows, closer together. The is still plenty of room in the configuration for new additions.

As the band SHAPE played the traffic of the A201 motorway whizzed at the far end of the lifeless plain, oblivious to the proceedings at NATO headquarters, Stoltenberg and all the rest trying their best to raise the event to the status of historic moment. On the far end lifeless stone plain between the behemoth of glass and steel that is the plaza the

His country officially a member state, Finnish prime minister Pekka Haavisto immediately approved of his application of his neighbor Sweden, which will soon become the 32^nd member of the alliance. Somewhere in the heavens far, far above the North Atlantic, Reichling stands to attention, salutes, and raises his baton.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by David Yearsley.

This is a developing story… Please check back for possible updates...

In its first major abortion decision since reversing Roe v. Wade last year, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday granted the Biden administration's request to continue allowing widespread access to the medication mifepristone while a legal battle plays out.

"This is very welcome news, but it's frightening to think that Americans came within hours of losing access to a medication that is used in most abortions in this country and has been used for decades by millions of people to safely end a pregnancy or treat a miscarriage," said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, in response to the order. "Patients shouldn't have to monitor Twitter to see whether they can get the care they need."

"Make no mistake, we aren't out of the woods by any means," Dalven stressed. "This case, which should have been laughed out of court from the very start, will continue on. And as this baseless lawsuit shows, extremists will use every trick in the book to try to ban abortion nationwide."

Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, similarly declared that the decision "is a huge relief, but we're not out of the woods yet."

"For now, providers and patients have the assurance that mifepristone is available" and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Northup said. "But we shouldn't even be here. This case should have been thrown out way before it got to the Supreme Court."

President Joe Biden also welcomed that the Supreme Court granted the emergency stay requested by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, and vowed that his administration will "continue this fight in the courts."

\u201cWhile we\u2019re glad that access to mifepristone remains for now, judges should never have been deciding the fate of medication abortion.\n\nThis is not over, but we\u2019ll be fighting alongside you, every step of the way.\u201d

— Planned Parenthood Action (@Planned Parenthood Action) 1682118141

The high court's order halts a decision from Texas-based U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump who earlier this month ruled against the FDA's 2000 approval of mifepristone, in response to a lawsuit brought by right-wing activists ultimately aiming to end abortion care nationwide.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals then partially blocked Kacsmaryk's ruling, preserving access to mifepristone—which is often taken in tandem with misoprostol for medication abortions—but reinstating rules that it cannot be dispensed by mail and only used up to seven weeks of pregnancy rather than 10.

Justice Samuel Alito temporarily put the 5th Circuit ruling on hold until Wednesday, then extended the deadline by two days. On Friday, he and fellow right-winger Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. While Thomas did not explain his position, Alito wrote in part that allowing the appeals court's decision to take effect while the broader legal fight continues "would simply restore the circumstances that existed (and that the government defended) from 2000 to 2016 under three presidential administrations."

As Alio noted, oral arguments before a three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit are scheduled for mid-May.

\u201cEven though the Supreme Court did the right thing for now do not forget that 147 republicans in Congress are still asking the Court to permanently ban the woman\u2019s health drug mifepristone. Here are their names.\u201d

— Bill Pascrell, Jr. \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\udde6 (@Bill Pascrell, Jr. \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\udde6) 1682118238

"If it were just up to the science, this case would be thrown out," Dr. Daniel Grossman—an OB-GYN who directs the research program Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco— told The Washington Post earlier this month. "We have over two decades of science showing how safe this is."

The Guttmacher Institute tweeted Friday morning: "Remember, we should not be here in the first place. This case is about politics, not the law or facts. Mifepristone is safe, effective, and should be available to everyone seeking medication abortion care."

While some patients and providers already rely on only misoprostol for abortions, using it alone is less effective than pairing the two medications, so "banning mifepristone could mean more money spent, more mental anguish over lingering symptoms of an unwanted pregnancy, and more time spent arranging treatment and figuring out how to step away from work or family responsibilities," Slate noted. "For people who live in states that restrict abortion, it could mean a second trip across state lines."

"It will also mean more pain and suffering," Slate warned, explaining that "because it takes much more misoprostol to terminate a pregnancy without the assistance of mifepristone—three doses of four tablets, left to dissolve in the mouth, rather than a single dose of four—the physical toll can be harsher," with patients reporting "a higher prevalence of diarrhea, fever, and chills."

The current legal battle over mifepristone comes as states controlled by anti-choice Republican legislators and governors continue to roll back abortion rights in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing justices reversing Roe last June with their decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

In a dozen states—Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, and West Virginia—abortion "is completely banned with very limited exceptions," according to the Guttmacher Institute's online tracker.

Guttmacher characterizes policies in another 14 states as "restrictive" or "very restrictive." One of them is Florida, where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, a presumed 2024 presidential contender, last week signed a six-week abortion ban that will take effect if the state Supreme Court upholds an earlier 15-week ban.

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

Recently, there have been troubling revelations about Florida Governor Ron DeSantis — a leading 2024 GOP presidential aspirant — concerning his conduct as a Navy JAG officer at Guantanamo Bay. His responsibilities at the detention facility apparently included responding to claims of mistreatment from the war-on-terror prisoners there. Relatively few of these detainees had any connection with al Qaeda, and many had simply been handed over to US forces in exchange for bounty payments. But DeSantis seemingly viewed them all as wily and unrepentant terrorists.

Of particular note, DeSantis was at Guantanamo in 2006 during the brutal forced-feeding of prisoners engaged in a mass hunger strike. Years later, DeSantis acknowledged that, as a legal advisor, he had suggested this intervention as a countermeasure to what he described as the detainees’ “waging jihad” — by refusing to eat. When interviewed last month, DeSantis emphasized that he “didn’t have authority to authorize anything” and that Guantanamo was “a professionally-run prison.” His first claim — sidestepping personal responsibility — may contain elements of truth; his second is outrageously absurd.

As a general matter, the forced-feeding of mentally competent individuals violates international standards of medical ethics and constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment. This was especially so in the case of the Department of Defense, which opted to employ extreme, punitive measures — even described as torture by United Nations investigators — when force-feeding the prisoners at Guantanamo. These measures included a restraint chair that immobilized the detainee’s entire body for hours at a time, and the use of tubing that was inserted through the nose into the stomach and then removed and reinserted multiple times each day, often causing sharp pain and bleeding. A defense attorney for Guantanamo prisoners subjected to forced-feeding has written, “Only a sadist could impose and witness such treatment without grave concern and soul-sickness.” It’s hard to argue with that blunt assessment. But there are also two larger truths we shouldn’t overlook.

First, even though DeSantis has disingenuously characterized the detainees as master manipulators who all claimed to be “Koran salesmen,” the hunger strikers were actually protesting an unconscionable system of indefinite detention and ruthless interrogation that relied on daily abuse — solitary confinement, physical beatings, sexual humiliation, and more. This routinized cruelty didn’t solely involve guards and interrogators. It also depended upon guidance from health professionals,who seemingly abandoned their fundamental “Do No Harm” principles to accommodate a White House insistent that the prisoners had no entitlement to humane treatment.

These abusive conditions and techniques have left many Guantanamo prisoners —past and present — with deep psychic wounds. Survivors of torture often experience overwhelming feelings of shame, helplessness, and disconnection as a result of having been subjected to mistreatment at the hands of another human being. Frequently, the victims of such traumas are also haunted by depression, anxiety, and PTSD; by nightmares and flashbacks; and by a lasting sense that safety and solace will never be achieved. Viewed from this perspective, the hunger strikes that DeSantis witnessed — and apparently dismissed as terrorist tactics — are better understood as the prisoners’ desperate and despairing attempts to regain some semblance of control over their lives and circumstances, even at the risk of starvation.

The second larger truth is this: accountability for Guantanamo’s horrors has never been a priority for our country’s elected leaders. No US president has ever taken meaningful steps on this front. George W. Bush, of course, never sought to discipline those responsible for the torturous policies his own administration authorized. Barrack Obama took action to end torture — but when it came to accountability, he decided “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.” Donald Trump clearly had no interest in such matters, promising instead to bring back waterboarding and “a hell of a lot worse.” And although Joe Biden has expressed a desire to close Guantanamo, he’s now building a second, multi-million-dollar courtroom there for military commission prosecutions in which detainees have limited due process rights.

So then how does Ron DeSantis’s alleged up-close-and-personal connections to prisoner abuse years ago really matter? It would be naïve to think that his political prospects will suffer. Indeed, he may even gain in popularity among voters who embrace his authoritarian mindset, share his disdain for protecting the rights of the vulnerable, and believe his misleading characterizations of the prison and the prisoners at Guantanamo.

But the attention DeSantis’s story has brought to Guantanamo can still do some good. Ideally, it can spark broader public interest in an examination of the facility’s shameful 21-year history: how its detention and interrogation operations have dishonored the values this country has long professed to hold dear; how the prisoners there became defenseless victims of state vengeance run amok; how the perpetrators of torture and abuse — and their masters — have eluded any form of accountability; and how essential it is to close Guantanamo and throw away the key.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Roy Eidelson.

Image by Stefan Vladimirov.

As quotes go, it’s notable: “Politics is not a dinner party.” I harbor no great fondness for Mao Zedong, but I do think that his famed comment points to a provocative truth about politics. Liberals and centrists today often act tacitly as if political ethics and personal ethics are identical. The “Would you have a beer with them?” test for presidential candidates commonly employed by pundits reinforces this unity. But our codes of individual and interpersonal ethics—the virtues we strive to cultivate in ourselves as people and how we behave with friends, family, and acquaintances—necessarily differ from public, political ethics, as theorists stretching back to Plato and Aristotle have recognized.

More

The post “Politics Is Not a Dinner Party” … Yet: In Praise of Festive Leftism appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Scott Remer.

"These systems demonstrate capabilities in question answering, and the generation of text, image, and code unimagined a decade ago, and they outperform the state of the art on many benchmarks, old and new," says the report. "However, they are prone to hallucination, routinely biased, and can be tricked into serving nefarious aims, highlighting the complicated ethical challenges associated with their deployment."

As Al Jazeerareported Friday, the analysis "comes amid growing calls for regulation of AI following controversies ranging from a chatbot-linked suicide to deepfake videos of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appearing to surrender to invading Russian forces."

Notably, the survey measured the opinions of 327 experts in natural language processing—a branch of computer science essential to the development of chatbots—last May and June, months before the November release of OpenAI's ChatGPT "took the tech world by storm," the news outlet reported.

"A misaligned superintelligent AGI could cause grievous harm to the world."

Just three weeks ago, Geoffrey Hinton, considered the "godfather of artificial intelligence," toldCBS News' Brook Silva-Braga that the rapidly advancing technology's potential impacts are comparable to "the Industrial Revolution, or electricity, or maybe the wheel."

Asked about the chances of the technology "wiping out humanity," Hinton warned that "it's not inconceivable."

That alarming potential doesn't necessarily lie with currently existing AI tools such as ChatGPT, but rather with what is called "artificial general intelligence" (AGI), which would encompass computers developing and acting on their own ideas.

"Until quite recently, I thought it was going to be like 20 to 50 years before we have general-purpose AI," Hinton told CBS News. "Now I think it may be 20 years or less."

Pressed by Silva-Braga if it could happen sooner, Hinton conceded that he wouldn't rule out the possibility of AGI arriving within five years, a significant change from a few years ago when he "would have said, 'No way.'"

"We have to think hard about how to control that," said Hinton. Asked if that's possible, Hinton said, "We don't know, we haven't been there yet, but we can try."

The AI pioneer is far from alone. According to the survey of computer scientists conducted last year, 57% said that "recent progress is moving us toward AGI," and 58% agreed that "AGI is an important concern."

In February, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman wrote in a company blog post: "The risks could be extraordinary. A misaligned superintelligent AGI could cause grievous harm to the world."

More than 25,000 people have signed an open letter published two weeks ago that calls for a six-month moratorium on training AI systems beyond the level of OpenAI's latest chatbot, GPT-4, although Altman is not among them.

"Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable," says the letter.

The Financial Timesreported Friday that Tesla and Twitter CEO Elon Musk, who signed the letter calling for a pause, is "developing plans to launch a new artificial intelligence start-up to compete with" OpenAI.

"It's very reasonable for people to be worrying about those issues now."

Regarding AGI, Hinton said: "It's very reasonable for people to be worrying about those issues now, even though it's not going to happen in the next year or two. People should be thinking about those issues."

While AGI may still be a few years away, fears are already mounting that existing AI tools—including chatbots spouting lies, face-swapping apps generating fake videos, and cloned voices committing fraud—are poised to turbocharge the spread of misinformation.

According to a 2022 IPSOS poll of the general public included in the new Stanford report, people in the U.S. are particularly wary of AI, with just 35% agreeing that "products and services using AI had more benefits than drawbacks," compared with 78% of people in China, 76% in Saudi Arabia, and 71% in India.

Amid "growing regulatory interest" in an AI "accountability mechanism," the Biden administration announced this week that it is seeking public input on measures that could be implemented to ensure that "AI systems are legal, effective, ethical, safe, and otherwise trustworthy."

Axiosreported Thursday that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is "taking early steps toward legislation to regulate artificial intelligence technology."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

The post Are Yellowstone Bison Threatened and Endangered Yet? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Tom Woodbury.

More than halfway through President Biden’s term, there remain numerous critical appointed positions across the executive branch that remain empty. My colleagues have writtenextensivelyabout the scope of this confirmation crisis. Some notable remaining vacancies include a seat on the Federal Communications Commission, around two dozen US Attorneys, and a seat on the National Transportation Safety Board. While much of this is due to obstruction by Senate Republicans, the importance of advancing good nominees remains. The fixes to the procedural delays are beyond Biden’s control (though not necessarily beyond Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s). But fighting to get the right people into positions of authority is still a top priority. As the mantra goes: personnel is policy.

But there is one critical, if low-profile, position that has not had a nominee at all: administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA). Interestingly, despite all of the media attention on the horrible February derailment of a Norfolk Southern train in East Palestine, OH — including increased coverage of the response effort from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Transportation (DOT) — there has been little attention on PHMSA itself.

PHMSA is an administration within DOT and is directly responsible for regulating dangerous trains. The weakened rule around high-hazard flammable trains is the work of Trump’s PHMSA. New rules addressing those shortcomings will also fall on its plate. And PHMSA’s authority extends well beyond just those rules, as it is responsible for regulating the safety (as its name implies) of pipelines and a litany of other transportation issues around moving dangerous materials. This includes flammable fuels like oil, natural gas, and coal, as well as radioactive substances and dangerous chemicals such as ammonium nitrate-based fertilizer. It’s a small and obscure agency, but undoubtedly a very important one.

The fact that such an important post as the PHMSA administrator has been purposefully left vacant is telling. It shows a lack of recognition around the post’s seriousness. And while the blame ultimately goes all the way to the White House, we would be remiss to absolve Secretary Pete Buttigieg. Presidents are famously busy and rely on input from their cabinet to determine what personnel decisions need to be prioritized. This is especially the case with technical offices, where the President depends on the subject matter expertise of their cabinet secretaries.

Additionally, President Biden, by not naming a nominee, has entrusted Buttigieg with deciding leadership at PHMSA. Unlike other administrations within DOT, the deputy administrator of PHMSA is appointed by the Secretary of Transportation without any need for presidential consultation or approval.

Tristan Brown, PHMSA’s deputy administrator, was handpicked by Buttigieg. That means that even more than is the case with other DOT administrations, the successes and failures of PHMSA ultimately go back to Buttigieg. As an aside, entrusting the deputy administrator with the full workload of the administrator here is a departure from Secretary Buttigieg’s handling of a similar vacancy at the FAA, where the deputy was bypassed for acting administrator, despite federal statute stating he should have gotten the job. PHMSA has no such explicit statutory language for its deputy. Also unlike PHMSA, the Transportation Secretary does not appoint the deputy FAA administrator — the President does.

While there have been encouraging signs lately of Buttigieg leaning more into his role of a regulator, including blocking the proposed Spirit-JetBlue merger, he still has a lot of work to do. Seeing Buttigieg talk about the rail industry obfuscating regulation and publicly pressuring airlines to get rid of junk fees shows he can take on the corporations he oversees. But for two years now, he has spent much of his term as an administration spokesperson on TV while allowing critical DOT business, like banning those junk fees, recovering billions of dollars owed to consumers, and improving rail brake regulations, to slip through the cracks.

Buttigieg is good with the media, including Fox News, and that has value to the administration, but the technocratic processes he oversees cannot come at the expense of a good media hit. The post he signed up for is a notoriously low profile one, partly because of how down in the weeds it can get. It’s fine for Buttigieg to have a higher media presence, but he cannot choose cameras over his unique legal obligations to regulate avaricious transportation companies.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Dylan Gyauch-Lewis.

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2010, was among the consumer advocates celebrating on Thursday as a federal court in New York City ruled that the bureau's funding structure is constitutional—rebuking years of right-wing and corporate attacks on the agency.

The Massachusetts Democrat expressed hope that the U.S. Supreme Court, which is expected to hear arguments in a separate but related case later this year, "follows more than a century of law and historical precedent" and also rules in favor of the CFPB, which has regulated debt collectors, payday lenders, credit card companies, and other financial businesses for more than a decade.

"Yet again, the constitutionality of the CFPB has been upheld, as it has been time and time before," said Warren.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the bureau Thursday in a case stemming from a debt collector's attempt to avoid a subpoena from the CFPB in 2017.

A lower court ruled in the case in August 2020 that the bureau's funding structure is constitutional, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said last year in the case set to be heard by the Supreme Court that the funding violates the Constitution's appropriations clause and the separation of executive and legislative powers.

The CFPB is funded by the Federal Reserve rather than through appropriations voted on annually by lawmakers.

Writing for the three-judge 2nd Circuit panel that voted unanimously in favor of the bureau, Judge Richard Sullivan noted that the justice system "has consistently interpreted the appropriations clause to mean simply that 'the payment of money from the Treasury must be authorized by a statute,'"—which doesn't apply to the CFPB since it receives no funding from the U.S. Treasury Department.

An upcoming ruling by the Supreme Court that supports the 2nd Circuit's finding would "mark a major win for everyday consumers impacted by abusive fees, predatory lenders, and corporate greed," said government watchdog Accountable.US.

"The CFPB is a vital voice for consumers and protects Americans from unfair and abusive practices," said Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.). "We can't allow these protections to be weakened."

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

A United Nations panel composed of the world's top scientists is set to release its latest climate assessment on Monday as governments fail to heed repeated, increasingly urgent warnings that the window for action to prevent catastrophic global heating is nearly shut.

The landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will come after a year in which planet-warming CO2 emissions shattered records once again as the impacts of such pollution—from "apocalyptic" flooding in Pakistan to deadly drought in East Africa—continued to mount.

After repeated delays, government delegations signed off on the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report on Sunday, clearing the way for the formal release of a sprawling synthesis of years of climate research.

The Associated Pressreported that the final decision came after "officials from big nations such as China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and the European Union haggled through the weekend over the wording of key phrases in the text."

Lesley Hughes, a former IPCC author and a director of the Australia-based Climate Council, said ahead of the report's release that "while this is a summary report of work we'd already seen in development, there is no doubt the findings of this report will be dire."

"Since the previous IPCC report was released, we've had even more unnatural disasters," Hughes added. "We must focus on the fact that predictions are now becoming observations. We've also had a period since the previous IPCC report came out where global emissions are rising once again, so the gap between where we are and where we need to go is increasing rather than decreasing."

"If we haven't seriously turned things around by the time the next such assessment report is due, then we'll be in very deep trouble."

The IPCC's 2021 report was deemed a "code red for humanity," a glaring signal that accelerated global action to phase out fossil fuel extraction and use was needed to avert disaster.

But in the years since, governments—specifically the rich nations most responsible for the climate crisis—have refused to act with the speed and ambition that scientists say is necessary.

At the end of 2022, the U.N. climate conference—an event teeming with fossil fuel lobbyists—ended with no concrete action to rein in oil and gas production.

As a result, hugely profitable global fossil fuel giants are planning to expand their operations in the coming years, potentially locking in additional emissions and further imperiling efforts to meet critical warming targets.

Governments, including those that claim to view the climate crisis as an existential threat, are actively aiding the continued extraction of fossil fuels. Just last week, the Biden administration approved the largest proposed oil drilling project on U.S. public land despite widespread opposition.

"This is the kind of thing that we simply can't afford to do anymore," Kristina Dahl of the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote late last week. "The fossil fuel industry has, for decades, opposed and obstructed any meaningful action on climate change. And despite ardent claims otherwise, the industry has refused to commit to align its business model with what the IPCC says is required to minimize climate harms. The industry remains a barrier to the future the world's children deserve."

Simon Bradshaw, the Climate Council's director of research, said Monday that the IPCC's new report will represent "a final warning."

"The central message from climate scientists is unmistakable: governments must rally to drastically cut emissions and cease the extraction and burning of fossil fuels this decade," said Bradshaw. "That message has been delivered repeatedly, and consistently, for many decades."

"We are seeing progress when it comes to renewable energy uptake, and cleaner transport, but things just aren't moving fast enough. If we haven't seriously turned things around by the time the next such assessment report is due, then we'll be in very deep trouble," Bradshaw added. "We have a choice here to act swiftly this decade. If we start giving it our all right now, we can avert the worst of it. So many solutions are readily available, like solar and wind power, storage, electric appliances, and clean transport options. We need to get our skates on."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Recently, a similar video ahs gone viral. In the video, a man slaps and kicks a woman wearing a burqa. A user named Satish Anna tweeted the video with a caption that translates to, “Hijab is also being used for child theft… be careful.” (Archive)

हिजाब भी इस्तेमाल हो रहा है बच्चा चोरी के लिए… सावधान रहें #HindusUnderAttack @sdeo76 @chitrapadhi @SaundiD @jeetensingh @Muktak8 @MNageswarRaoIPS @Sjp1007 @total_woke_ @gopalgiri_uk @madhukishwar @AshwiniUpadhyay pic.twitter.com/IzWHFFi3OS

— Satish Anna (@mysatish20) March 16, 2023

Another user named Azad shared the same video and wrote ‘Abdul wearing Burqa trying to kidnap a Hindu child.’

Abdul wearing Burqa trying to kidnap a Hindu child.
pic.twitter.com/jrHcwDVprw

— Azzad Alsalem (@AzzatAlsaleem) March 16, 2023

In addition, while sharing this clip, some right-wing handles have given a communal angle.

This video has also gone viral on Facebook, with claims that hijab is being used for child lifting.

Fact Check

Alt News noticed that the man seen in the video is Ankur Jatuskaran who frequently posts scripted videos. Alt News has fact-checked viral videos made by him in the past.

According to his Facebook page, he creates prank videos and uploads them on his YouTube channel and Facebook page. We checked his YouTube channel and found that the video in question was uploaded on February 18, 2023. It has obtained over 2 crore views. There is no disclaimer.

Ankur has two Facebook pages and two YouTube-verified channels. All of these channels post violent scripted videos. Some videos are without any disclaimer.

We went through Ankur’s Facebook pages. Both pages have posted a longer version of this viral video. It was posted on one page on February 19, and on the other page on February 23. The longer version of the viral video is of 7-minute duration. There is a disclaimer which is visible only for a second each at the start and at the end. “This video is purely for viewer entertainment and is a work of fiction,” says the disclaimer, among other things.

• 

Ankur has two YouTube channels. Both have a total of 19 lakh subscribers. And his two Facebook pages have 4 million and 6 lakh followers. He frequently posts violent scripted videos with no disclaimer so that people often mistake them for a real incident. In this particular video, the disclaimer is so brief that it requires pausing the video to read it completely. Viewers who are unable to do so are easily misled.

To sum up, once again a scripted video is being used to make a false communal claim that a man wore a burqa to kidnap a child. Such scripted videos have been used in the past to make false claims. Alt News reports on them can be found here.

The post Yet another scripted video viral with claims of burqa being used for child kidnapping appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Priyanka Jha.

Parliamentary State Secretary Rita Schwarzeluehr-Sutter said in a written reply to a question from lawmaker Joana Cotar that China currently has two "overseas police stations" on German soil, neither of which is covered by existing bilateral agreements on diplomatic institutions.

Rather, they are "informal outposts of local Chinese police units from typical emigrant regions of China, such as the coastal provinces Fujian, Jiangsu and Zhejiang," Schwarzeluehr-Sutter said in a written reply to a lawmaker’s question carried in publicly available federal government archives highlighted in a March 15 report by the Handelsblatt newspaper.

"[They] are not managed by Chinese police officers, but by Chinese-born so-called 'community leaders' who have German citizenship," the March 2 written reply said.

"These are people who have good contacts with the diplomatic missions of the People's Republic of China and who enjoy the trust of the Chinese security authorities. They are also involved in Chinese United Front organizations," Schwarzeluehr-Sutter wrote in a reference to the Chinese Communist Party's outreach and influence arm.

China has denied that it runs overseas police operations, claiming that the "service stations" are purely for the administrative convenience of its nationals overseas.

But it has shut down a number of them after a September 2022 report from the Spain-based Safeguard Defenders group listed dozens of such operations, sparking investigations and orders to shut down from governments around the world.

Spying on the Chinese diaspora

The Interior Ministry said the police stations do offer administrative services, but also engage in espionage among members of the Chinese diaspora, including influential figures, as well as the "propagation of ideological and political guidelines, with responsible community leaders acting as 'propagandists'."

Foreign Ministry official Andreas Michaelis said in a written reply to a parliamentary question in December that the federal government had "made it clear to the Embassy that it would not tolerate violations of its sovereignty, and remains in contact with the Chinese side," the Handelsblatt reported.

German Green Member of the European Parliament Reinhard Bütikofer called via his Twitter account for a pause on the next bilateral summit between Germany and China.

"The German government can no longer tolerate the Chinese violation of German sovereignty by operating illegal 'police stations'," Bütikofer tweeted. "As long as such institutions exist, the preparation of the next GER-CN Summit will have to wait."

The federal Foreign Ministry requested that China shut down the offices in a note verbale on Nov. 3, 2022, the Handelsblatt reported.

It said the Chinese Embassy had replied saying that there were "no relevant activities" going on at the service stations.

According to the article, which cited China expert Mareike Ohlberg, the persecution and intimidation of Chinese people in Germany has also taken place "by phone or text directly from China."

Harassed and intimidated

Politicians from both major parties told the paper that there should be zero tolerance for the service stations, and called on the foreign ministry to escalate the matter diplomatically, it said.

Aniessa Andresen, chairman of the advocacy group Hongkonger in Deutschland, said some of the group's members had received threatening messages from people believed to be working for the Chinese state security services.

She said group members had also been photographed at protests across Germany, threatened with being "reported," as well as being stalked, harassed and intimidated.

Andresen said the Chinese government is blatantly violating international law, and the German government's lackluster response had encouraged the persecution of Chinese dissidents living in what should be a free country.

She said the unofficial police activity was a threat to national security, and called for the immediate shutdown of all overseas police stations or service stations on German soil.

Ray Wong of the German campaign group Freiheit für Hongkong agreed.

"What this shows us is that China thinks Germany is weak, and won't dare to do anything even if they don't shut down the two police stations, for fear of countermeasures from China," Wong said.

"Germany should stand firm on this, and be prepared to take necessary measures to force China to respect its sovereignty, and to protect the personal freedom of Hong Kongers, and of all anti-communists [in Germany]," he said.

Confident about opening up

The furor over Chinese police stations in Germany came as Chinese leader Xi Jinping called for better ties with political parties overseas, as a complement to diplomacy with foreign states.

Conducting dialogues with other countries' political parties and organizations shows that the Chinese Communist Party is confident about opening up, communication and exchanges with the rest of the world, Xi was quoted as saying by the Global Times newspaper.

It also demonstrates the party's sincere desire to have all political groups around the world gain a better understanding of the Chinese Communist Party's ideology, and its determination to promote world peace and development, the paper paraphrased him as saying.

"As the ruling party of China, the [CCP] is ready to take responsibility and play a greater role in the international arena," the paper quoted international relations expert Li Haidong as saying.

But academic Li Xinjiang said there was scant room for acceptance of the way Western democracies work in China's plan, which is more about exporting Beijing's model of totalitarian rule around the world.

"There is a global trend right now in which we are seeing barbaric, totalitarian regimes on the rise, not on the decline," Li told Radio Free Asia. 

"This is because China acts as a model and a kind of big brother, who takes the lead."

He said the emergence of more authoritarian governments in southeast Asia had Chinese influence behind it.

Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Yitong Wu and Chingman for RFA Cantonese.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Friday denied reports that U.S. President Joe Biden would imminently approve the Willow Project, saying "no final decisions" have been made on the highly controversial $8 billion ConocoPhillips oil drilling endeavor in northern Alaska slammed by critics as a "climate catastrophe."

"Anyone who says there has been a final decision is wrong," Jean-Pierre told reporters Friday evening after outlets including Bloomberg, CNN, and The New York Timesreported that the Biden administration would green-light what would be the single-largest oil operation in the United States.

"President Biden is delivering on the most aggressive climate agenda of any U.S. president in history and spurring an unprecedented expansion of clean energy," the White House spokesperson added.

Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—who supports the project—told the Times that she had not received notification of its approval.

"We are not celebrating yet, not with this White House," she said.

Climate campaigners, Indigenous groups, environmentalists, dozens of Democratic U.S. lawmakers, and others are vehemently opposed to what many have called a "ticking carbon bomb" and a "climate catastrophe."

The Biden administration's own assessment of the project acknowledges that it "would likely incur spills," and the Interior Department has expressed "substantial concerns" about the proposal.

According to the Sierra Club:

Willow is sited in a vast Arctic landscape that provides critical habitat for birds from all over the world as well as animals like the caribou that subsistence hunters rely on to feed their families and communities. Native communities, like Nuiquset, are already dealing with the consequences of oil development in the region, including deteriorating air quality and a spike in respiratory disorders. Last year, a well in Conoco's Alpine Field blew out, spewing methane into the air and endangering residents of Nuiquset. These risks are already here, and Willow only makes them worse.

On Friday, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore called the proposed project "recklessly irresponsible," adding that "we must end the expansion of oil, gas, and coal and embrace the abundant climate solutions at our fingertips."

Len Montgomery, public lands campaign director at Environment America, told Common Dreams via email that "we need our leaders to think long-term. Clean energy, not oil, is our future."

"Allowing a brand new Arctic oil project to break ground in one of our most sensitive ecosystems would be short-sighted," Montgomery argued. "This project will exacerbate climate change and will directly harm caribou and polar bears. We are inspired by the outpouring of opposition against this project from across the country and we will continue our efforts to prevent the chillers, the ice roads, and the well pads from ever encroaching on this pristine area."

Quannah Chasinghorse—a Han Gwich'In and Sicangu/Oglala Lakota land protector, climate justice activist, and fashion model from Eagle Village, Alaska and the tribes of South Dakota—wrote in a CNNopinion article Friday that "ConocoPhillips has claimed that the Willow Project could create thousands of construction jobs and hundreds of permanent ones, along with needed oil, but at what cost?"

"We must change the narrative that the land serves us and only exists so that we can extract resources from it."

"Make no mistake, it will not only be local communities, or even Alaskans, who will feel the negative climate impacts of this project," she continued. "According to an analysis from the Center for American Progress, developing and burning oil from the Willow Project would produce up to 287 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over the next 30 years. That's equal to the annual emissions of 76 coal power plants—a third of all coal plants in the United States."

"We must change the narrative that the land serves us and only exists so that we can extract resources from it," Chasinghorse asserted. "My elders tell me that if we take care of the land, the land will take care of us. We cannot live without healthy land. Not just us Gwich'in. All of us, everywhere"

"President Biden, stop the Willow Project," she added. "Stop climate chaos, before it's too late"

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

ChatGPT has become an overnight sensation wowing those who have tried it with an astonishing ability to churn out polished prose and answer complex questions. This generative AI platform has even passed an MBA test at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business and several other graduate-level exams. On one level, we have to admire humankind’s astonishing ability to invent and perfect such a device. But the deeper social and economic implications of ChatGPT and of other AI systems under rapid development are just beginning to be understood including their very real impacts on white-collar workers in the fields of education, law, criminal justice, and politics.

The use of AI systems in the political sphere raises some serious red flags. A Massachusetts Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives, Jake Auchincloss, wasted no time using this untested and still poorly understood technology to deliver a speech on a bill supporting creation of a new artificial intelligence center. While points for cleverness are in order, the brief speech read by the Auchincloss on the floor of the U.S. House was actually written by ChatGPT. According to his staff, it was the first time that an AI-generated speech was made in Congress. Okay, we can look the other way on this one because Auchincloss was doing a little grandstanding and trying to prove a point. But what about Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) who used AI to write a bill to regulate AI and who now says he wants Congress to pass it?

The use of AI systems in the political sphere raises some serious red flags.

Not to go too deep into the sociological or philosophical weeds, but our current political nightmare is being played out in the midst of a postmodern epistemological crisis. We’ve gone from the rise of an Information Age to a somewhat darker place: a misinformation age where a high degree of political polarization now encourages us to reflexively question the veracity and accuracy of events and ideas on “the other side.” We increasingly argue less about ideas themselves than who said them and in what context. It’s well-known that the worst kind of argument is one where the two parties can’t even agree on the basic facts of a situation, and this is where we are today in our political theater.

Donald Trump introduced the notion of fake news, his “gift” to the electorate. We now question anything and everything that happens, with deep distrust in the mainstream media also contributing heavily to this habit of mind. This sets the stage for a new kind of political turmoil in which polarization threatens to gridlock and erode democracy even more. In this context, Hannah Arendt, an important political thinker about how democracies become less democratic, noted that: “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between true and false no longer exist.”

David Bromwich—writing recently in The Nation—noted that Arendt believed there was “a totalitarian germ in the Western liberal political order.” Arendt is warning us and we should pay attention. The confusion and gridlock we experience today may give way to something even worse if we’re not vigilant. This is because the human mind seeks clarity and can only tolerate so much ambiguity. Authoritarian aspects of government that seek end runs around democratic norms offer a specious solution to this.

Generative AI and Democracy

Into this heady mix of confusion, delusion, and bitter argument in U.S. politics, we now have a sophisticated AI system that’s capable of churning out massive amounts of content. This content could be in the form of text, images, photos, videos, documentaries, speeches, or just about anything that might cross our computer screens.

Let’s consider what this means. An organization could conceivably use ChatGPT or Google Deep Mind as a core informational interface to the Internet and all of the various platforms available on it. For example, a political organization could use AI to churn out tweets, press releases, speeches, position papers, clever slogans, and all manner of other content. Worse, when this device becomes an actual product available to corporations and government agencies or entities (such as political campaigns for example), organizations that can afford the price can purchase versions intended for private use that are far more powerful than the free model now available. (As with other services that exist in the Internet model, the free offering is just there to get us hooked.)

Imagine a world where large amounts of what you see and hear are shaped by these systems. Imagine AI systems starting to compete with each other using their ability to entice and manipulate public opinion. And let’s keep in mind that it was Elon Musk who started and still financially supports OpenAI, the company that built ChatGPT. This, of course, is the same Elon Musk who owns a company called Neuralink chartered with exploring how we can hook ourselves into computers with brain implants. Lest you think that’s an idea only intended for special medical purposes, this has now become “a thing.” At this year’s Davos event in January, a gathering of the most powerful people on the planet, Klaus Schwab was caught on video gushing about how wonderful it will be when we all have brain implants.

Congress Must Act, But Will It?

What can be done about these possible additional threats to our already faltering democracy? Will our dysfunctional Congress “get it” and take action? I had some experiences years ago that woke me up to the lack of technological expertise in Congress while serving as a consultant to the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, attending White House events, and meeting with a Senator who headed up the House Telecommunications Subcommittee. Although this was several decades ago, I have no reason to believe that much has changed. Last year’s Facebook hearings with Mark Zuckerberg on the hot seat showed further evidence of how many in Congress don’t fully understand today’s technology advances, how they’re monetized, or how they impact us culturally and politically.

Technology and politics are now conjoined and are moving under the radar of the media and many legislators. Democracy is morphing with more technocratic systems of governance moving forward that lack full oversight and a clear understanding of their social and political impacts. Newer and still poorly understood hyper-technologies are also giving powerful corporations yet another way to creep into and influence the political landscape. The worst case scenario, of course, is full-on technocracy in which we hand over certain key operations of government decision-making to these untried and unproven systems.

This has already happened to a limited extent in criminal justice cases involving AI, evoking the dystopian movie Minority Report. A 2019 article in MIT’s Technology Review pointed out that use of AI and automated tools by police departments in some cases resulted in erroneous convictions and even imprisonment. Perhaps greater public awareness of AI systems and the threat they pose to democracy will precipitate a long overdue reckoning and reconsideration of these issues with our elected officials. Let’s hope so.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Tom Valovic.

The post The Clearest Case Yet for Taxing Billionaires appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Sam Pizzigati.

Striking Frame Group workers meet for a report back on negotiations with management in Bolton Hall in 1973.
Credit: David Hemson Collection, University of Cape Town Libraries

Democracy has a dream-like character. It sweeps into the world, carried forward by an immense desire by humans to overcome the barriers of indignity and social suffering. When confronted by hunger or the death of their children, earlier communities might have reflexively blamed nature or divinity, and indeed those explanations remain with us today. But the ability of human beings to generate massive surpluses through social production, alongside the cruelty of the capitalist class to deny the vast majority of humankind access to that surplus, generates new kinds of ideas and new frustrations. This frustration, spurred by the awareness of plenty amidst a reality of deprivation, is the source of many movements for democracy.

Habits of colonial thought mislead many to assume that democracy originated in Europe, either in ancient Greece (which gives us the word ‘democracy’ from demos, ‘the people’, and kratos, ‘rule’) or through the emergence of a rights tradition, from the English Petition of Right in 1628 to the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789. But this is partly a retrospective fantasy of colonial Europe, which appropriated ancient Greece for itself, ignoring its strong connections to North Africa and the Middle East, and used its power to inflict intellectual inferiority on large parts of the world. In doing so, colonial Europe denied these important contributions to the history of democratic change. People’s often forgotten struggles to establish basic dignity against despicable hierarchies are as much the authors of democracy as those who preserved their aspirations in written texts still celebrated in our time.

Coronation Brick workers march along North Coast Road in Durban, led by a worker waving a red flag.
Credit: David Hemson Collection, University of Cape Town Libraries

Over the course of the second half of the twentieth century, a range of struggles developed against dictatorial regimes in the Third World that had been put in place by anti-communist oligarchies and their allies in the West. These regimes were born out of coups (such as in Brazil, the Philippines, and Turkey) and given the latitude to maintain legal hierarchies (such as in South Africa). The large mass demonstrations that laid at the heart of these struggles were built up through a range of political forces, including trade unions – a side of history that is often ignored. The growing trade union movement in Turkey was, in fact, part of the reason for the military coups of 1971 and 1980. Knowing that their hold on power was vulnerable to working-class struggles, both military governments banned unions and strikes. This threat to their power had been evidenced, in particular, by a range of strikes across Anatolia developed by unions linked to the Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions (DISK), including a massive two-day demonstration in İstanbul known as the June 15–16 Events that drew in 100,000 workers. The confederation, established in February 1967, was more militant than the existing one (Türk İş), which had become a collaborator with capital. Not only did militaries move against socialist and non-socialist governments alike that attempted to exercise sovereignty and improve the dignity of their peoples (such as in the Congo in 1961, Brazil in 1964, Indonesia in 1965, Ghana in 1966, and Chile in 1973), but they also moved out of the barracks – with the bright green light from Washington – to quell the cycle of strikes and worker protests.

Once in power, these wretched regimes, dressed in their khaki uniforms and the finest silk suits, drove austerity policies and cracked down on any movements of the working class and peasantry. But they could not break the human spirit. In much of the world (as in Brazil, the Philippines, and South Africa), it was trade unions that fired the early shot against barbarism. The cry in the Philippines ‘Tama Na! Sobra Na! Welga Na!’ (‘We’ve had enough! Things have gone too far! It’s time to strike!’) moved from La Tondeña distillery workers in 1975 to protests in the streets against Ferdinand Marcos’ dictatorship, eventually culminating in the People Power Revolution of 1986. In Brazil, industrial workers paralysed the country through actions in Santo André, São Bernardo do Campo, and São Caetano do Sul (industrial towns in greater São Paulo) from 1978 to 1981, led by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (now Brazil’s president). These actions inspired the country’s workers and peasants, raising their confidence to resist the military junta, which collapsed as a result in 1985.

A group of striking textile workers demand an extra R5 per day at the Consolidated Textile Mill in February 1973.
Credit: David Hemson Collection, University of Cape Town Libraries

Fifty years ago, in January 1973, the workers of Durban, South Africa, struck for a pay rise, but also for their dignity. They woke at 3 am on 9 January and marched to a football stadium, where they chanted ‘Ufil’ umuntu, ufile usadikiza, wamthint’ esweni, esweni usadikiza’ (‘A person is dead, but their spirit lives; if you poke the iris of their eye, they still come alive’). These workers led the way against entrenched forms of domination that not only exploited them, but also oppressed the people as a whole. They stood up against harsh labour conditions and reminded South Africa’s apartheid government that they would not sit down again until class lines and colour lines were broken. The strikes opened a new period of urban militancy that soon moved off the factory floors and into wider society. A year later, Sam Mhlongo, a medical doctor who had been imprisoned on Robben Island as a teenager, observed that ‘this strike, although settled, had a detonator effect’. The baton was passed to the children of Soweto in 1976.

From Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research and the Chris Hani Institute comes a memorable text, The 1973 Durban Strikes: Building Popular Democratic Power in South Africa (dossier no. 60, January 2023). It is memorable in two senses: it recovers an almost lost history of the role of the working class in the fight against apartheid, in particular the Black working class, whose struggle had a ‘detonator’ effect on society. The dossier, beautifully written by our colleagues in Johannesburg, makes it hard to forget these workers and harder still to forget that the working class – still so deeply marginalised in South Africa – deserves respect and a greater share of the country’s social wealth. They broke the back of apartheid but did not benefit from their own sacrifices.

The Chris Hani Institute was founded in 2003 by the South African Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions. Chris Hani (1942–1993) was one of South Africa’s great freedom fighters, a communist who would have made an even greater impact than he did had he not been assassinated at the end of apartheid. We are grateful to Dr Sithembiso Bhengu, the director of the Chris Hani Institute, for this collaboration and look forward to the work that lies before us.

As this dossier went to press, we heard that our friend Thulani Maseko (1970–2023), chairperson of the Multi-Stakeholders Forum in Swaziland, was shot dead in front of his family on 21 January. He was one of the leaders of the fight to bring democracy to his country, where workers are at the forefront of the battle to end the monarchy.

When I reread our latest dossier, The 1973 Durban Strikes, to prepare for this newsletter, I was listening to Hugh Masekela’s ‘Stimela’ (‘Coal Train’), the 1974 song of migrant workers travelling on the coal train to work ‘deep, deep, deep down in the belly of the earth’ to bring up wealth for apartheid capital. I thought of the Durban industrial workers with the sound of Masekela’s train whistle in my ear, remembering Mongane Wally Serote’s long poem, Third World Express, a tribute to the workers of southern Africa and their struggles to establish a humane society.

– it is that wind
it is that voice buzzing
it is whispering and whistling in the wires
miles upon miles upon miles
on the wires in the wind
in the subway track
in the rolling road
in the not silent bush
it is the voice of the noise
here it comes
the Third World Express
they must say, here we go again.

‘Here we go again’, Serote wrote, as if to say that new contradictions produce new moments for struggle. The end of one crushing order – apartheid – did not end the class struggle, which has only deepened as South Africa is propelled through crisis upon crisis. It was the workers who brought us this democracy, and it will be workers who will fight to establish a deeper democracy yet. Here we go again.

The post It Was the Workers Who Brought Us Democracy, and It Will Be the Workers Who Establish a Deeper Democracy Yet first appeared on Dissident Voice.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Vijay Prashad.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2023/01/27/it-was-the-workers-who-brought-us-democracy-and-it-will-be-the-workers-who-establish-a-deeper-democracy-yet/feed/ 0 367536 https://www.radiofree.org/2023/01/09/did-rahul-say-he-had-a-problem-with-priests-no-yet-another-clipped-video-shared-without-context-by-amit-malviya/ https://www.radiofree.org/2023/01/09/did-rahul-say-he-had-a-problem-with-priests-no-yet-another-clipped-video-shared-without-context-by-amit-malviya/#respond Mon, 09 Jan 2023 12:50:27 +0000 https://www.altnews.in/?p=142659 A seven-second-long clip of Rahul Gandhi speaking at a press conference is going viral on social media. In this clip, the Congress leader can be heard saying in Hindi, “This...

The post Did Rahul say he had a problem with priests? No, yet another clipped video shared without context by Amit Malviya appeared first on Alt News.

]]> A seven-second-long clip of Rahul Gandhi speaking at a press conference is going viral on social media. In this clip, the Congress leader can be heard saying in Hindi, “This country belongs to ascetics, this country is not of priests”.

Amit Malviya, the in-charge of BJP’s national information & technology department, shared this clip on Twitter, and wrote, “Now they have a problem with the priests too…”

अब इनको पुजारियों से भी तकलीफ़ है… pic.twitter.com/zcWnNrVx1Y

— Amit Malviya (@amitmalviya) January 8, 2023

Saurabh Marodia, the social media convenor of BJP Uttar Pradesh, shared the video on Twitter with similar captions.

अब इनको पुजारियों से भी तकलीफ़ है… pic.twitter.com/rSuU3e7sTq

— Saurabh Marodia (@SaurabhSMUP) January 8, 2023

Deepak Prakash, the state president of BJP Jharkhand shared the clip and wrote, “Now they have a problem with the priests too… That’s why the country has a problem with Congress.”

अब इनको पुजारियों से भी तकलीफ़ है…

इसीलिए देश को कांग्रेस से तकलीफ है…. pic.twitter.com/olQvg3zGFF

— Deepak Prakash (@dprakashbjp) January 8, 2023

Other Twitter users who have shared the video with similar captions include @MahantYogiG, @Moresachin8009, @bankim_jani, @ptravidwivedi, @Kanchan000222, and more.

Click to view slideshow.

The clip has also been shared on Facebook by several users.

Fact Check

We checked the Twitter account of Bharat Jodo Yatra (@bharatjodo) and noticed that the Congress leader had done a press interaction in Haryana on January 8 around 1:26 PM IST. A quick comparison of the video with the one shared by Amit Malviya suggested that the viral clip has been taken from this press event.

Taking a cure from  this, we checked the full press meet on YouTube. We noticed that the Congress leader spoke about ‘Tapasya’ (penance) and ‘Puja’ (worship) to distinguish between the ideologies of the Congress and the BJP. This discourse starts around the 28-minute mark.

He says, “If you look at the history of Congress… you just said there is an energy within the workers… this (Congress) is an organisation built on penance (Tapasya). If you ask it (the party) to observe penance, its energy increases. The BJP is an organisation of worship (Puja). If you ask the party to take part in worshiping, its energy increases. Worship can be of two kinds.. I am talking about religion… Normally, worshiping means I go to the gods and I ask for something. The person who is worshiping the god, takes the initiative. The RSS’s idea of worshiping is different. The RSS wants that people are forced to pray to them. Modiji wants — and that’s why he doesn’t meet you — that people pray to his forcibly. And that everyone in the country prays to them. There can be only one response to this, and that response is penance. And that is the reason this march has been so successful. Because in this march, not only the Congress party, not only one person,  but lakhs of people are also doing a penance.”

He then adds (from 29:55), “…Skills should be respected, hard work should be respected. This is what the Congress party says, historically. The BJP-RSS says there should be no respect for penance. Whoever prays to us, should be respected. Now look at demonetisation through this framework. Did demonetisation respect the penance of the poor? Not at all. It was an attack on penance. Its message was to the farmers, the menial labourers, to the small business owners that no matter how much penance you do, nothing will change…”

At 37:15-minute while answering a question, Rahul says “…This is a country of ascetics. The way some people say, ‘see Rahul Gandhi has walked so many kilometres’. Why don’t they talk about farmers? There is not a single farmer or labourer in this country who has walked less than me. Why don’t we talk about them? Because we don’t have respect for penance. I respect it. This is the change we want to bring. This country is of ascetics and not of worshipers. This is the reality of this country. And if this country wants to become a superpower, then we will have to respect the ascetics, the producers. We will have to meet them, we will have to open the doors of banks to them and protect them.”

After looking at the full context it could be understood that Rahul made an analogy between Congress and the BJP. Where he compared Congress party workers, farmers, menial labourers, small business owners, and others to that of an ascetic. And the BJP-RSS to those who demand that people come and pray to them.

Amit Malviya and BJP leaders yet again shared a video of Rahul Gandhi that has been taken out of context to attack him.

The post Did Rahul say he had a problem with priests? No, yet another clipped video shared without context by Amit Malviya appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Kalim Ahmed.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2023/01/09/did-rahul-say-he-had-a-problem-with-priests-no-yet-another-clipped-video-shared-without-context-by-amit-malviya/feed/ 0 363123 https://www.radiofree.org/2023/01/02/perhaps-the-most-important-yet-most-marginalized-story-of-2022/ https://www.radiofree.org/2023/01/02/perhaps-the-most-important-yet-most-marginalized-story-of-2022/#respond Mon, 02 Jan 2023 16:09:24 +0000 https://dissidentvoice.org/?p=136590 Can you imagine walking downtown in Seattle, Vancouver, New York, Toronto, or any other burg in Canada or the United States and not seeing any panhandlers? This homelessness, begging, and dumpster diving is not confined to major urban centers. Last week, I was in Yellowknife, the capital of Denedeh (Home of the People; colonially designated […]

The post Perhaps the Most Important, Yet Most Marginalized, Story of 2022 first appeared on Dissident Voice.]]>

Yellowknife, Boxing Day 2022

Can you imagine walking downtown in Seattle, Vancouver, New York, Toronto, or any other burg in Canada or the United States and not seeing any panhandlers? This homelessness, begging, and dumpster diving is not confined to major urban centers. Last week, I was in Yellowknife, the capital of Denedeh (Home of the People; colonially designated as Northwest Territories), home to about 20,000 souls, where the temperatures ranged from -30° Celsius to -40° Celsius. Despite this, the homeless were out in the frigid temperatures asking change for a cup of coffee. There are shelters in Yellowknife. The take-away point, however, is that some people struggle with penury despite Canada being a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose preamble recognizes “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family…”

Specifically, Article 23(1) of the UNDHR holds,

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Article 25(1) of the UNDHR states,

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

If Canada and the US honored their signatures on the UNDHR and abided by its articles, then absolute poverty should not exist.

While poverty is an important story for people to be cognizant of, and while it may not receive the media coverage and government prioritization that it deserves, the marginalized story that so many people seem unaware of is that there is a country that made it through 2022 having lifted its citizenry out of absolute poverty.

China declared victory against poverty in 2021. And it is not just China lauding its victory. UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres commended China on its fight against poverty. The World Bank noted that China has lifted 770 million out of poverty over the last 40 years. Michelle Bachelet, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said, “Poverty alleviation and the eradication of extreme poverty, 10 years ahead of its target date, are tremendous achievements of China.” Citing China’s eradication of absolute poverty, even the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, was moved to praise China’s amazing economic development.

This achievement was by the nominally communist China. Being aware of the victory over poverty is great, but this awareness ought also to be kept in mind before unthinkingly criticizing socialism or communism. The intellectual poverty of the criticism is such that many people consider it sufficient to just remark, “That’s communism/socialism,” as if providing a label for a political-economic system should evoke fear and invalidate it. Thus, in the US, Barack Obama was risibly derided as a socialist; he, nonetheless, sought to distance himself from such a descriptor.

Donald Trump declared his scorn for the bugaboo of socialism (apparently ignorant of what spending on the military; police; border security; highway, airport, train stations, railways, port facilities, bridge construction and maintenance; education; etc represent) and communism. He unsuccessfully tried to paint his presidential challenger in 2020, Joe Biden, as a socialist (again risibly).

Even university professors, such a Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, would add their ill-contrived opinions to the anti-socialist, anti-communist chorus.¹

What Obama, Trump, Biden, Peterson, Justin Trudeau and other western-aligned personalities beholden to capitalism cannot tolerate is that a developing nation in the earliest stage of socialism (one with Chinese characteristics) has done something that the longtime capitalist-butt kissing nations have never, despite any lip service, come close to achieving: the elimination of absolute poverty.

What’s Next for Chinese Society?

China has identified a metric: “Human rights are an achievement of humanity and a symbol of progress.” Now China has set its eyes on achieving xiaokang (moderate prosperity), defined as “a status of moderate prosperity whereby people are neither rich nor poor but free from want and toil.” Xiaokang is to benefit all Chinese and benefit the world.

Meanwhile, the poor masses in capitalist countries languish while the middle classes, in the US and Canada, fall behind.

Why isn’t this war on poverty covered regularly and widely in capitalist media? Why doesn’t everyone know that the Chinese have conquered poverty and are embarked upon creating a prosperous society for all Chinese? Shouldn’t this be something all nations sincerely and actively aspire to?

1. See “Understanding the Red Menace,” “Understanding the Soviet Union, Inequality, and Freedom of Expression,” and “IQ, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Population Control, Mao, and Communism.”

The post Perhaps the Most Important, Yet Most Marginalized, Story of 2022 first appeared on Dissident Voice.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2023/01/02/perhaps-the-most-important-yet-most-marginalized-story-of-2022/feed/ 0 361509 https://www.radiofree.org/2022/12/16/how-putin-could-yet-boost-domestic-support-for-the-ukraine-war/ https://www.radiofree.org/2022/12/16/how-putin-could-yet-boost-domestic-support-for-the-ukraine-war/#respond Fri, 16 Dec 2022 15:42:42 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/ukraine-war-western-arms-supplies-putin-claims-world-status-nato/ OPINION: Putin has many problems – not least that support for the war is flagging. But he may have a trump card

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Paul Rogers.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2022/12/16/how-putin-could-yet-boost-domestic-support-for-the-ukraine-war/feed/ 0 358327 https://www.radiofree.org/2022/12/16/starbucks-workers-launch-biggest-strike-yet-in-rebellion-against-anti-union-bullying/ https://www.radiofree.org/2022/12/16/starbucks-workers-launch-biggest-strike-yet-in-rebellion-against-anti-union-bullying/#respond Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:23:49 +0000 https://www.commondreams.org/node/341719

In their largest labor action to date, Starbucks workers across the United States launched a three-day strike on Friday with the goal of forcing the coffee giant to bargain in good faith with hundreds of newly organized shops and put an immediate end to its unlawful union-busting efforts.

Starbucks Workers United said in a statement that roughly 1,000 baristas from approximately 100 unionized shops nationwide will walk off the job starting Friday, and a majority of the workers taking part in the action will remain on strike through Sunday.

The walkouts come as Starbucks continues to close stores engaged in union activity and fire labor organizers, drawing a flurry of legal complaints from the funding-starved National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Earlier this month, the NLRB said Starbucks is violating labor law by refusing to negotiate with its hometown Seattle Roastery, where employees voted to unionize in April.

The NLRB is also pushing for a nationwide cease-and-desist order against Starbucks over its union-busting conduct.

None of the more than 260 Starbucks locations that have voted to unionize since December 2021 have been able to reach a contract deal with management, which Starbucks Workers United said is carrying out a "ruthless campaign of anti-union bullying."

Michelle Eisen, a barista from the Elmwood Starbucks location in Buffalo, New York, said in a statement that company executives "sent a clear message when they closed the Broadway and Denny store," referring to the first unionized Starbucks shop in Seattle.

"They're doubling down on their union-busting, so we're doubling down, too," said Eisen. "We're demanding fair staffing, an end to store closures, and that Starbucks bargain with us in good faith."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Friday that he stands "in strong solidarity with Starbucks workers on strike today."

"It is absurd that [Starbucks CEO] Howard Schultz—a guy worth billions of dollars—is pulling out all the stops to deny decent wages and dignity on the job to the very workers who helped him amass his wealth," Sanders added.

Unionized Starbucks workers have accused the company of illegally denying new benefits to organized workers, terminating union organizers, and using bad-faith stalling tactics to sabotage contract negotiations.

As Bloomberg reported Friday, contract talks at a unionized Knoxville, Tennessee store "began last week and ended within minutes when company representatives walked out over a dispute about the union's desire for some workers to be able to participate via Zoom."

Starbucks officials have similarly derailed negotiations in Buffalo, Chicago, and other locations.

Austin Locke, a Starbucks Workers United member in Queens, New York, told In These Times that the goal of the three-day national strike is to "bring more attention to the fact that Starbucks is not bargaining with us."

"Every bargaining date they've given, they've shown up, and then they've walked out," said Locke. "At every turn, they've said they're not going to recognize the union, they're not going to bargain with the union."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

]]> https://www.radiofree.org/2022/12/16/starbucks-workers-launch-biggest-strike-yet-in-rebellion-against-anti-union-bullying/feed/ 0 358343 https://www.radiofree.org/2022/12/01/pentagon-fails-another-audit-yet-congress-poised-to-approve-847-billion-budget/ https://www.radiofree.org/2022/12/01/pentagon-fails-another-audit-yet-congress-poised-to-approve-847-billion-budget/#respond Thu, 01 Dec 2022 17:36:41 +0000 https://www.commondreams.org/node/341405

Anti-war advocates blasted U.S. lawmakers on Thursday, one day after it was reported that Congress is expected to pass an $847 billion military budget for the coming fiscal year even though the Pentagon recently failed its fifth consecutive annual audit and nearly 40 million people nationwide are living in poverty.

Last month, "the Pentagon once again failed to pass a basic audit showing that it knows where its money goes," the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies said in a statement. "And instead of holding out for any kind of accountability, Congress stands ready to give a big raise to an agency that failed to account for more than 60% of its assets."

Citing four people familiar with negotiations, Politico reported Wednesday that "an emerging compromise on annual defense policy legislation" is set to add $45 billion to President Joe Biden's already massive military spending request. The White House's March request for an $813 billion military budget for fiscal year 2023 represented a $31 billion increase over the current, record-breaking sum of $782 billion.

According to Politico, "The deal would set the budget topline of the fiscal 2023 National Defense Authorization Act at $847 billion for national defense, and would go as high as $858 billion when including programs that fall outside of the jurisdiction of the Senate and House Armed Services committees." The Senate panel approved an equivalent military spending boost in June.

The National Priorities Project (NPP) called the bipartisan proposal to further increase military spending despite the Pentagon's persistent accounting and human rights failures "a sign of an agency that is too big, plain and simple."

"Other major government agencies have long since passed audits," said NPP. "But the Pentagon, with its global sprawl of more than 750 military installations, and a budget increase that alone could more than double the diplomacy budget at the State Department, is so big and disjointed that no one knows where its money goes."

According to NPP, one solution would be to make the Pentagon "a lot smaller."

Earlier this year, Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.)—co-chairs of the Defense Spending Reduction Caucus—unveiled the People Over Pentagon Act of 2022, which proposes slashing Pentagon spending for the next fiscal year by $100 billion and reallocating those funds toward threats that "are not military in nature," such as the Covid-19 pandemic, the climate emergency, and worsening inequality.

Although a majority of U.S. voters are opposed to military spending in excess of $800 billion, earlier efforts to cut the Pentagon's budget have failed to gain enough support to pass the House or Senate thanks in part to lawmakers who receive substantial amounts of campaign cash from the weapons industry, which benefits from relentlessly expanding expenditures.

NPP said Thursday that "after 20 years of war, and in a time when government spending is desperately needed elsewhere, the Pentagon's fifth failed audit in as many years (and having never, ever passed) should be the last straw."

"This isn't using our taxpayer dollars wisely," the nonprofit research institute continued. "It's robbing programs that we need, like the discontinued child tax credit that cut child poverty by half. And it's continuing the Pentagon's legacy of war, all for the benefit of the contractors who commandeer roughly half of the Pentagon's budget in any given year."

Approximately 55% of all Pentagon spending went to private sector military contractors from FY 2002 to FY 2021, according to Stephen Semler of the Security Policy Reform Institute. "If this privatization of funds rate over the last 20 years holds," Semler wrote last December, arms dealers will rake in an estimated $407 billion in public money in FY 2022.

NPP director Lindsay Koshgarian told Truthout on Wednesday that "the same legislators who refused to continue child tax credits that cut child poverty in half are now choosing to add tens of billions of dollars to an already-enormous Pentagon budget."

"The bonus for the Pentagon is more than the entire annual climate investment under the Inflation Reduction Act," Koshgarian added. "The only ones who will benefit are the corporations that sell weapons to the U.S. and around the world."

Last year, NPP published a report showing that the U.S. has spent more than $21 trillion on militarization since September 11, 2001.

Citing that analysis, Jacobin's Luke Savage argued at the time that the nation's military spending—now even higher than it was at the height of the Cold War—is not only wasteful but also inherently anti-democratic:

Military spending allocated for 2022 considerably exceeds the cost of five separate Green New Deal bills. For a miniscule fraction of what America spent on the two-decade-long "war on terror," it could have fully decarbonized its electricity grid, eradicated student debt, offered free preschool, and funded the wildly popular and effective Covid-era's anti-poverty child tax credit for at least a decade. Spending public funds so lavishly on war inevitably means not spending them elsewhere, and it's incredible to imagine what even a fraction of the money sucked up every year by America's bloated military-industrial complex could accomplish if invested differently.

Fundamentally, however, the case against the Pentagon's ever-expanding budget is a democratic one. Every year, the government of the world's most powerful country now allocates more than half of its discretionary funds to what is laughably called "defense spending"—regardless, it turns out, of whether the nation is at risk of attack or officially at war.

"Corporate capture of Congress is a problem in most major policy areas," wrote Savage, "but defense contractors and other military concerns have a stranglehold that is arguably unmatched."

As NPP noted Thursday, enacting Lee and Pocan's legislation "would open the door for other critical investments—and stop rewarding an agency that doesn't even know where the money is going."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

A gunman opened fire inside a Chesapeake, Virginia Walmart late Tuesday, killing at least six people and wounding others in the latest mass shooting in the United States, which has seen more than 600 this year alone.

Reuters reported that local police "have so far not provided any details about the suspected shooter, but several media outlets have identified him as a manager at the store." The shooter was found dead at the scene.

"The police were not clear whether the shooter died of self-inflicted injuries," Reuters added. "They believed that the shooting happened inside the store, but said that one body was found outside."

State Sen. L. Louise Lucas, the Democratic president pro tempore of the Virginia Senate, tweeted that she is "absolutely heartbroken that America's latest mass shooting took place in a Walmart in my district in Chesapeake, Virginia tonight."

"I will not rest until we find the solutions to end this gun violence epidemic in our country that has taken so many lives," Lucas wrote.

U.S. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said he is "sickened by reports of yet another mass shooting, this time at a Walmart in Chesapeake."

The Virginia shooting comes days after a gunman killed five people at an LGBTQ+ nightclub in Colorado Springs. The suspect is facing murder and hate crime charges.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

A gunman opened fire inside a Chesapeake, Virginia Walmart late Tuesday, killing at least six people and wounding others in the latest mass shooting in the United States, which has seen more than 600 this year alone.

Reuters reported that local police "have so far not provided any details about the suspected shooter, but several media outlets have identified him as a manager at the store." The shooter was found dead at the scene.

"The police were not clear whether the shooter died of self-inflicted injuries," Reuters added. "They believed that the shooting happened inside the store, but said that one body was found outside."

State Sen. L. Louise Lucas, the Democratic president pro tempore of the Virginia Senate, tweeted that she is "absolutely heartbroken that America's latest mass shooting took place in a Walmart in my district in Chesapeake, Virginia tonight."

"I will not rest until we find the solutions to end this gun violence epidemic in our country that has taken so many lives," Lucas wrote.

U.S. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said he is "sickened by reports of yet another mass shooting, this time at a Walmart in Chesapeake."

The Virginia shooting comes days after a gunman killed five people at an LGBTQ+ nightclub in Colorado Springs. The suspect is facing murder and hate crime charges.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Less than two years after fomenting a deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, former President Donald Trump on Tuesday formally announced that he will be making another run for the White House in 2024, delivering a characteristically lie-filled speech replete with bigotry and attacks on the election process.

During his address, Trump called for a complete end to early and absentee voting—methods that he has used in the past—and said elections should be conducted via paper ballots only, a demand fueled by baseless claims about U.S. voting machines that became commonplace in right-wing circles following the 2020 presidential election.

"To protect our democracy and our freedoms, we must make sure he never sets foot in the Oval Office again."

The twice-impeached former president's announcement came after many of his handpicked candidates who parroted his election lies lost their midterm contests, significantly dragging down the GOP's overall performance in congressional and state-level races.

"Last week, the American people soundly rejected Trump's extremist candidates for governor, senator, and secretaries of state," Sean Eldridge, founder and president of the advocacy group Stand Up America, said in a statement late Tuesday. "Tonight's announcement makes it clear that our democracy is not out of the woods yet."

"Trump was the ringleader of the criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election and the will of the American people," Eldridge added. "He and his allies have shown that they will go to any lengths to seize power, from lying to the public to inciting political violence. To protect our democracy and our freedoms, we must make sure he never sets foot in the Oval Office again."

Trump, the subject of numerous ongoing investigations at the state and federal levels, launched his campaign with a massive war chest that campaign finance experts say is the product of a blatantly illegal transfer of cash from the former president's leadership PAC to a super PAC known as Make America Great Again, Inc. The Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint over the move on Monday.

Following Trump's speech and submission of paperwork initiating his run, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) reiterated its vow to pursue legal action to bar the former president from the 2024 ballot.

"When Donald Trump incited an insurrection that led to a deadly attack on the Capitol, he disqualified himself from holding office under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution," CREW said in a statement. "We warned him that should he decide to run again, we would be taking action to ensure the Constitution's ban on insurrectionists holding office is enforced. Now we will be. Trump made a mockery of the Constitution he swore to defend, but we will see that it is defended."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Less than two years after fomenting a deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, former President Donald Trump on Tuesday formally announced that he will be making another run for the White House in 2024, delivering a characteristically lie-filled speech replete with bigotry and attacks on the election process.

During his address, Trump called for a complete end to early and absentee voting—methods that he has used in the past—and said elections should be conducted via paper ballots only, a demand fueled by baseless claims about U.S. voting machines that became commonplace in right-wing circles following the 2020 presidential election.

"To protect our democracy and our freedoms, we must make sure he never sets foot in the Oval Office again."

The twice-impeached former president's announcement came after many of his handpicked candidates who parroted his election lies lost their midterm contests, significantly dragging down the GOP's overall performance in congressional and state-level races.

"Last week, the American people soundly rejected Trump's extremist candidates for governor, senator, and secretaries of state," Sean Eldridge, founder and president of the advocacy group Stand Up America, said in a statement late Tuesday. "Tonight's announcement makes it clear that our democracy is not out of the woods yet."

"Trump was the ringleader of the criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election and the will of the American people," Eldridge added. "He and his allies have shown that they will go to any lengths to seize power, from lying to the public to inciting political violence. To protect our democracy and our freedoms, we must make sure he never sets foot in the Oval Office again."

Trump, the subject of numerous ongoing investigations at the state and federal levels, launched his campaign with a massive war chest that campaign finance experts say is the product of a blatantly illegal transfer of cash from the former president's leadership PAC to a super PAC known as Make America Great Again, Inc. The Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint over the move on Monday.

Following Trump's speech and submission of paperwork initiating his run, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) reiterated its vow to pursue legal action to bar the former president from the 2024 ballot.

"When Donald Trump incited an insurrection that led to a deadly attack on the Capitol, he disqualified himself from holding office under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution," CREW said in a statement. "We warned him that should he decide to run again, we would be taking action to ensure the Constitution's ban on insurrectionists holding office is enforced. Now we will be. Trump made a mockery of the Constitution he swore to defend, but we will see that it is defended."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Progressives worldwide celebrated leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's victory Sunday in Brazil's presidential election as a major win for the climate, workers, and democracy itself, all of which were threatened by the policies and actions of far-right incumbent Jair Bolsonaro, who has yet to concede the race.

"Six years ago, the coup against Dilma Rousseff ushered in a dark period in Latin America's largest country," DiEM25, a pan-European pro-democracy movement, said in a statement Monday, referring to the 2016 ouster of Lula's presidential successor and ally. "A darkness that deepened with the political imprisonment of Lula, and culminated with the election of Jair Bolsonaro and the disastrous—and criminal—acts perpetrated by him during his presidency."

"Now, Brazilian people have chosen hope over fear, and solidarity over hate," DiEM25 added. "Lula's victory is one for the poorest, for women, for indigenous peoples – and, ultimately, for all of us around the world concerned with the protection of Brazil’s invaluable ecosystems as part of the crucial fight against climate change."

The campaign went on to note that Brazil's presidential contest—which proceeded to a runoff after neither candidate won the 50%+ needed to secure outright victory earlier this month—"was marked by political violence and by Bolsonaro's suggestions that he would not respect the election's results if he lost."

"DiEM25, and its political parties MERA25 in Greece and in Germany, urge all progressives in Europe to unequivocally denounce any attempt by Bolsonaro to subvert what is widely recognized as one of the most efficient and trustworthy electoral processes in the world," the movement added.

DiEM25's message was echoed by progressives across the globe, including in the United States, where Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other lawmakers had warned that Bolsonaro's assault on Brazil's voting system and baseless claims of fraud could culminate in violence similar to the January 6, 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol.

"Today, the people of Brazil have voted for democracy, workers' rights, and environmental sanity," said Sanders, who helped secure Senate passage of a resolution calling on the U.S. government to oppose any subversion of Brazil's democratic process.

"I congratulate Lula on his hard-fought victory and look forward to a strong and prosperous relationship between the United States and Brazil," Sanders added.

U.K. Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn wrote on Twitter that Lula's win represents "a victory for social justice, Indigenous rights, and the future of humanity."

The jubilation in the streets of Brazil, applause from global progressives, and congratulations from leaders in Latin America and around the world contrasted sharply with the silence from Bolsonaro in the wake of his narrow loss.

The incumbent, defeated after one term in office that brought massive destruction to the Amazon rainforest and a catastrophic pandemic response, declined to speak Sunday night and has not publicly accepted the outcome amid concerns that he could falsely claim Lula's late surge is evidence of fraud.

As the Associated Press reported, "Bolsonaro had been leading throughout the first half of the count and, as soon as da Silva overtook him, cars in the streets of downtown São Paulo began honking their horns. People in the streets of Rio de Janeiro's Ipanema neighborhood could be heard shouting, 'It turned!'"

Soon after the final results came in, Brazil's presidential palace went dark, with Bolsonaro holed up and refusing to address the media or his supporters.

Ultimately, Lula—a former metalworker and union leader who previously served as Brazil's president from 2003 to 2011—won roughly 2 million more votes than Bolsonaro and is set to take office on January 1.

"So far, Bolsonaro has not called me to recognize my victory, and I don't know if he will call or if he will recognize my victory," Lula told supporters late Sunday.

The president-elect, who has vowed to prioritize the fight against hunger and poverty, added that "today, the only winner is the Brazilian people."

"This isn't a victory of mine or the Workers' Party, nor the parties that supported me in campaign," Lula said. "It's the victory of a democratic movement that formed above political parties, personal interests, and ideologies so that democracy came out victorious."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

A pair of congressional Democrats on Tuesday officially introduced their promised proposal to immediately halt all U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia for a year.

"Saudis must reverse their oil supply cuts, which aid and abet Russia's savage criminal invasion, endanger the world economy, and threaten higher gas prices at U.S. pumps."

The legislation, spearheaded by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), follows the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies, or OPEC+, agreeing to slash oil production to boost prices.

U.S. President Joe Biden and other critics of the move have framed it as Saudi Arabia siding with Russia several months into Russian President Vladimir Putin's deadly and dangerous invasion of Ukraine—a position echoed Tuesday by the bill's sponsors.

"Saudi Arabia's disastrous decision to slash oil production by two million barrels a day makes it clear that Riyadh is seeking to harm the U.S. and reaffirms the need to reassess the U.S.-Saudi relationship," declared Khanna.

The legislative proposal comes over seven years into the Saudi-led war on Yemen, which had created what is widely considered the world's worst humanitarian crisis. Earlier this month, negotiators failed to extend a truce that began in April.

"There is no reason for the U.S. to kowtow to a regime that has massacred countless civilians in Yemen, hacked to death a Washington-based journalist, and is now extorting Americans at the pump," Khanna said, referencing the 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi, which the U.S. intelligence community concluded was ordered by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, or MBS.

"My bill with Sen. Blumenthal to halt U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia will force MBS to reconsider his efforts to jack up global oil prices," the congressman continued. "There must be consequences for fleecing the American people in order to support Putin's unconscionable war."

Blumenthal similarly said that "this simple yet urgent measure would halt U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia after their deeply offensive, destructive blunder: siding with Russia at this historic moment."

"Saudis must reverse their oil supply cuts, which aid and abet Russia's savage criminal invasion, endanger the world economy, and threaten higher gas prices at U.S. pumps," the senator argued. "We cannot continue selling highly sensitive arms technology to a nation aligned with an abhorrent terrorist adversary."

"I'm proud to sponsor this bicameral legislation to send a strong message to the Saudis as our country works to rebalance this one-sided relationship," he added. "I urge my colleagues to support this essential bill and will fight for its swift passage."

Long before the recent OPEC+ decision, peace groups and some progressives in Congress were calling for an end to U.S. complicity in the Saudi coalition's war. While Biden pledged last year to cut off support for offensive operations in Yemen, he has come under fire for all that he's allowed to continue, including arms sales, and for his summer meeting—and fist bump—with MBS.

The new bill was introduced after Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) vowed Monday to block all future U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia as backlash over the OPEC+ decision, saying that "as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I will not greenlight any cooperation with Riyadh until the kingdom reassesses its position with respect to the war in Ukraine. Enough is enough."

Asked about Menendez's remarks during a Tuesday interview with CNN, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said that Biden is "obviously disappointed by the OPEC decision" and ready to work with lawmakers to determine future U.S.-Saudi relations.

"I think the president's been very clear that this is a relationship that we need to continue to reevaluate, that we need to be willing to revisit," Kirby said. "And certainly in light of the OPEC decision, I think that's where he is, and he's willing to work with Congress to think through what that relationship ought to look like going forward."

Along with calls for cutting off weapons to Saudi Arabia, the OPEC+ move has sparked demands for Congress to ban oil exports.

"Political leaders here at home must understand that the solution is not to increase drilling," Food & Water Watch managing director of policy Mitch Jones—whose group advocates for a rapid, just transition to clean energy—said last week. "Corporations are exporting record quantities of gasoline, and making record-setting profits as a result."

Critics of Big Oil—including Khanna—have accused fossil fuel giants of war profiteering and using their massive profits to enrich shareholders at the expense of not only consumers but also the planet.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

The International Monetary Fund on Tuesday became the latest prominent global institution to warn that the world economy is barreling toward a potentially devastating recession as central banks aggressively raise interest rates, Russia's war in Ukraine rages, and pandemic-induced supply chain disruptions persist.

In its new World Economic Outlook report, the IMF lowered its global growth forecast for next year in the face of myriad "steep challenges" and warned that "the worst is yet to come" for many countries as a strong U.S. dollar worsens debt burdens and costs-of-living crises in developing nations.

"Monetary policy could miscalculate the right stance to reduce inflation."

"Risks to the outlook remain unusually large and to the downside," the report states. "Monetary policy could miscalculate the right stance to reduce inflation... More energy and food price shocks might cause inflation to persist for longer. Global tightening in financing conditions could trigger widespread emerging market debt distress."

The IMF expects inflation, which is afflicting countries across the globe, to remain elevated through next year even as the U.S. Federal Reserve and other powerful central banks attempt to tamp down demand, risking mass job loss and a worldwide economic crisis.

Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, the IMF's director of research, cautioned in a blog post Tuesday that central banks could hurl the global economy into an "unnecessarily severe recession" if they go too far with interest rate increases, echoing a concern voiced in recent weeks by the World Bank, the United Nations, and progressive economists.

"Financial markets may also struggle with overly rapid tightening," Gourinchas added.

In an interview with The New York Times, Gourinchas said the IMF expects "about a third of the global economy to be in a technical recession"—defined as two consecutive quarters of economic contraction—in 2023.

In a separate report published Tuesday as finance ministers traveled to Washington, D.C. for the IMF and World Bank's annual meeting, the IMF observed that "financial stability risks have increased," adding to simmering fears of a global financial collapse and anxiety over continued economic turmoil in the United Kingdom.

"Many advanced economies and emerging markets may face housing-market-related risks as mortgage rates rise and lending standards tighten, squeezing potential borrowers out of the market," the IMF's new Global Financial Stability Report notes. "If further adverse shocks were to realize, tighter financial conditions may trigger market illiquidity, disorderly sell-offs, or distress."

Eric LeCompte, executive director of the Jubilee USA Network, said in response to the IMF's warnings that "it seems likely that we are heading into a recession."

"The U.S. and other large economies will see contractions and this impacts the entire global economy," said LeCompte. "The war and rising interest rates are putting developing countries in an even more difficult situation. Rising food and energy prices hurt everyone, in particular the poor."

"Some of the proposed solutions of austerity and higher interest rates will cause pain," LeCompte added. "As the dollar gets stronger, developing country debts become dangerously unsustainable."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Author Jeff Brown wrote that China is “history’s most successful socialist and communist country.”

This conflation of communism and socialism is common but inaccurate. It fudges that, according to Marxist thought, socialism is an earlier stage in the process of reaching the end goal of communism.

That writer Ron Leighton asserts in his piece that “China is Capitalist” is rather simplistic. Laissez faire capitalism, neoliberalism, and exploitation of other nations are antithetical to Chinese political-economic practice.

Dictionary Definitions

Socialism: “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.”

Communism: “a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.”

Capitalism: “an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.”

Is there an extant purely capitalist society? What do hospitals, schools, the fire department, the police, military, etc represent? The fact is that capitalism, because of its proclivity to concentrate wealth in a few hands, could not survive in a society without wealth redistribution.

The Communist Party of China prioritized pulling all its citizens out of absolute poverty and achieved this in late 2021. What “capitalist” country has achieved this? The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — despite a scorched earth bombardment by the US, climatological disasters suffered, and continuous sanctions against it — has achieved tuition-free education for all, kindergarten through university; free preschool; universal healthcare; full employment; and universal housing. What capitalist countries have achieved this? In fact, my North Korean guide proudly opined that the DPRK was more socialist than China.

China now strives toward becoming a xiaokang society, a moderately prosperous society — basically a society where almost everyone has attained a middle class level. This is hardly what one would expect to be prioritized under capitalism’s law of the jungle.

Unhindered, a system of socialism should function without need for capitalism.

Nonetheless, arguing about whether China is communist or capitalist is futile. China is neither.

If one wants to know what political-economic system China adheres to then check in with China’s chairman Xi Jinping. He states clearly in his book On the Governance of China that China follows and applies Marxist-Leninism to the Chinese context and that China is currently in the early stage of socialism, what Chinese call Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. The “Communist” in the Communist Party of China indicates the end goal, as Xi also makes clear in his book.

China emphasizes peace, the freedom for each nation to choose a system which best suits it, win-win commerce, and an improved life for people of all nations. It does not seek to impose a political-economic system on others, and it does not emphasize profit over people.

Sounds quite distant from capitalism.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Photograph Source: US Postal Service – Public Domain

Congress has had hearing after hearing on Jan. 6, with another due to start on Wednesday. For certain elements of the Democratic Party, this has become something of a Passion Play.

In contrast, as I note in the latest Capitol Hill Citizen, the Democrats, especially in the House, have blocked any meaningful Congressional inquiry into the origins of the pandemic which has killed millions and turned everyone’s life upside down for years.

But Jan. 6 we are told was an unprecedented attack on the Capitol, the very seat and symbol of our democracy. The massive attention paid to the attack has nothing to do with partisan politics, the Democratic Party leadership claims, but is simply defending the integrity of the foundations our nation was built upon.

But after the 9/11 attacks, Congress itself came under a false flag biowarfare attack, shutting down Congress and terrorizing the entire country.

There was never a single Congressional inquiry.

The effects of the 2001 anthrax attacks could hardly have been more far reaching.

Someone mailed letters with deadly anthrax to a series of targets including Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy.

The two had been raising concerns about the Patriot Act, which the Bush/Cheney administration wanted to ram through Congress after 9/11.

The anthrax letters were a “false flag” attack. That is, whoever sent them deceptively tried to pin the attacks on innocents. In this case, Arabs or Muslims. Text in the anthrax letters included the date “9-11-01” and the words: “You can not stop us. We have this anthrax. You die now. Are you afraid? Death to America. Death to Israel. Allah is Great.”

Brian Ross of ABC claimed repeatedly that the spores in the attack letters had been coated in bentonite — the Iraqi method of weaponization. Ross’s anonymous government sources who claimed Iraq was the culprit were shown to be lying, but ABC to this day still protects their identity. Why? (See my piece “Should Media Expose Sources Who Lied to Them?“)

The 9/11 attacks were obviously a major traumatic event, but the anthrax attacks which followed sent fear to virtually everyone in the country. People were frightened to open their mail. The terror was palpable. Many could hardly think straight. With much of the public gripped by panic, Bush, Cheney and company succeeded in getting the so-called Patriot Act through. Bush and Cheney also launched the invasion of Afghanistan during this period and would launch the deceptive campaign to invade Iraq a year later, in the Fall of 2002, exactly 20 years ago.

Graeme MacQueen, author of The Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy, notes: “By the end of 2001, however, all stories of foreign terrorists had collapsed. The nature of the spore preparations revealed the operation as an inside job — the spores came from one of three possible labs, all inside the U.S. and serving the military and the CIA.”

The FBI would try to pin blame for the attacks on a series of individuals. Its case fell apart each time. Eventually, it blamed Fort Detrick Army microbiologist Bruce Ivins. Just then, he died of an alleged suicide. So no case was brought forward. There was no trial.

In 2008, Leahy, one of the targets of the attacks, told then-FBI head Robert Mueller, who claimed that deceased government scientist Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator: “I do not believe in any way, shape or manner that he is the only person involved in this attack on Congress and the American people.”

In 2010, President Obama actually threatened to veto a move to investigate the anthrax attacks.

In 2015 Richard Lambert, who was for some years the Inspector in Charge of the FBI’s anthrax investigation, charged that “While Bruce Ivins may have been the anthrax mailer, there is a wealth of exculpatory evidence to the contrary which the FBI continues to conceal from Congress and the American people.”

Lambert said: “I absolutely do not think they could have proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” The New York Times reported: “He declined to be specific, saying that most of the information was protected by the Privacy Act and was unlikely to become public unless Congress carried out its own inquiry.”

While postal workers and other were dying from the anthrax in 2001, Judy Miller of the New York Times would get harmless powder that appeared to be anthrax, causing her to become a major media figure; her book Germs: Biological Weapons and America’s Secret War had just come out.

Whitney Webb has noted the role of others like Robert Kadlec, who was the assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the Department of Health and Human Services in the Trump administration; it was a position he actually helped create during the Bush administration during which time he help produce the Dark Winter bioterrorism exercise held in June 2001.

Immediately after the events of September 11, 2001, Kadlec became a special advisor on biological warfare to then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz. In the days that followed, Rumsfeld openly and publicly stated that he expected America’s enemies, specifically Saddam Hussein, to aid unspecified terrorist groups in obtaining chemical and biological weapons, a narrative that was analogous to that used in the Dark Winter exercise that Kadlec had helped create.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Dark Winter’s other co-authors — Randall Larsen, Tara O’Toole and Thomas Inglesby — personally briefed Dick Cheney on Dark Winter, at a time when Cheney and his staff had been warned by another Dark Winter figure, Jerome Hauer, to take the antibiotic Cipro to prevent anthrax infection. It is unknown how many members of the administration were taking Cipro and for how long.

Also see Webb’s interview with Robbie Martin from last year.

Several times, including in 2011, shortly before the tenth anniversary of the anthrax attacks, Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), who is a scientist, introduced the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act. It never got anywhere.

Journalists Bob Coen and Eric Nadler produced the documentary Anthrax War, which was aired by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

The documentary features Leahy asking Mueller: “These weapons that were used against the American people — and they’re weapons; they’re weapons — the weapons that were used against the American people and Congress — are you aware of any facility in the United States that is capable of making the weapons that were used on Congress and the American people besides Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, and the Battelle facility in West Jefferson, Ohio?” Mueller would not respond in public.

Anthrax War quotes noted scientist, Jonathan King, a professor of molecular biology at MIT: “The response to the anthrax attacks and the bioterrorism initiative has been to launch a nationwide billion-dollar campaign to, quote ‘defend us from unknown terrorists.’ But the character of this program is roughly as follows. You say well, what would the terrorists come up with? What’s the nastiest, most dangerous, most difficult to diagnose, difficult to treat, microorganisms that we can think of? Well, let’s go bring that organism into existence, so that we can figure out how to defend against that. The fact of the matter is, it’s indistinguishable from an offensive program in which you would do the same thing.”

Anthrax War also features Putin charging that, as a result of U.S. government actions: “It’s now obvious that a fresh round of a new arms race has started.”

Indeed, the U.S. government perversely drastically increased funding for biodefense/biowarfare after the anthrax attacks, a prime example of putting out the fire with gasoline. And that’s just one of many consequences of the attacks that has not had a reckoning.

It is beyond depraved that no real investigation took place regarding the anthrax attacks. Congress in 2001 was gripped by fear and failed to fulfill any legitimate democratic function or to be a meaningful check on an administration intent on repression and war.

What’s Congress’s excuse for not investigating the attacks in the two decades since? Or now?

Andrew Sullivan, an influential writer, in October 2001, during the anthrax biowarfare attack, effectively argued for nuking Iraq, writing the piece “The Coming Conflict“:

We have to extend it to Iraq. It is by far the most likely source of this weapon; it is clearly willing to use such weapons in the future; and no war against terrorism of this kind can be won without dealing decisively with the Iraqi threat. We no longer have any choice in the matter. Slowly, incrementally, a Rubicon has been crossed. The terrorists have launched a biological weapon against the United States. They have therefore made biological warfare thinkable and thus repeatable. We once had a doctrine that such a Rubicon would be answered with a nuclear response. We backed down on that threat in the Gulf War but Saddam didn’t dare use biological weapons then. Someone has dared to use them now. Our response must be as grave as this new threat. I know that this means that this conflict is deepening and widening beyond its initial phony stage. But what choice do we have? Inaction in the face of biological warfare is an invitation for more in a world where that is now thinkable.

Sullivan is in fact correct on his last point: “Inaction in the face of biological warfare is an invitation for more in a world where that is now thinkable.”

It’s just that the “terrorists” aren’t foreign Arabs or Muslims, but elements within the U.S. government.

This article first appeared on Sam Husseini’s Substack page.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Sam Husseini.

Former President Donald Trump is facing his greatest legal peril yet, as New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a civil lawsuit Wednesday against Trump, three of his children and his family business for widespread financial fraud. The suit alleges they overvalued assets by billions of dollars in order to secure more favorable financial arrangements, then deflated those values to pay less in taxes. If the lawsuit is successful, the Trump Organization could be barred from conducting business in the state of New York. “He’s gotten away with this for decades. Now he’s going to have to answer in civil court,” says award-winning reporter David Cay Johnston, who has covered Trump for years. Also on Wednesday, a three-judge federal appeals panel, including two who were appointed by Trump, allowed the Justice Department to continue reviewing the documents seized by the FBI from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

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

President Joe Biden took a victory lap on Thursday after his administration helped broker a deal to stave off what would have been the first national freight railroad strike in 30 years. But the potential crisis is not over until rank-and-file rail workers vote on whether to approve the agreement — which could take weeks.

“Until railroad workers in the coming days can digest this and have their questions answered, there’s no consensus able to build on whether this deal is good, bad or ugly,” said Ron Kaminkow, a Nevada-based engineer and member of the Teamsters-affiliated Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen (BLET).

"If the tentative agreement is rejected, the railroads may again be headed for a national strike or lockout later this year."

The tentative agreement reached early Thursday covers over 60,000 workers with the BLET and the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers-Transportation Division (SMART-TD), two of 12 rail unions that have been in contract negotiations with the major freight rail carriers for nearly three years. While the other unions had already reached tentative deals, the BLET and SMART-TD were the last holdouts. 

BLET President Dennis Pierce, who was directly part of the high-stakes negotiations, told In These Times that in accordance with the union’s internal processes, the tentative agreement will first be reviewed by the union’s general chairmen, who will finalize the document before it is sent out to the membership for a ratification vote via mail.

“This is probably going to take three to four weeks to [get full details into the members’ hands],” Pierce said. ​“It’s not a delay tactic, it’s just the way the process works. Everyone needs to remain calm, because they will have their day to exercise their democratic rights on whether they want this to be their contract or not.”

At the center of the labor dispute is draconian attendance policies, which don’t allow workers to take sick leave — and force them to be on-call 24/7. In recent decades, major Class I rail carriers like BNSF, Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern and CSX have implemented ​precision scheduled railroading (PSR) — a kind of lean production, just-in-time model designed to maximize shareholder profits by slashing expenses.

Because of PSR cost-cutting, over the past six years, the major Class I railroads like BNSF, Union Pacific, CSX and Norfolk Southern have slashed their collective workforce by 29 percent (around 45,000 workers), leaving the industry woefully understaffed and putting extra strain on workers already accustomed to long, irregular hours. 

“We used to work under much more flexible attendance policies that we could self-select when we needed time off for ourselves or our families within reason, before these carriers embraced PSR and started clamping down on these attendance policies,” said Ross Grooters, an engineer and BLET member based in Iowa.

While PSR has harmed workers, shippers and consumers, it has led to the rail carriers recording record profits, with shareholders raking in $183 billion in buybacks and dividends since 2010.

Bargaining

Since 2020, two coalitions of 12 rail unions — dubbed the ​“United Rail Unions” — have been in negotiations with the major railroad companies, represented by the National Carriers’ Conference Committee. 

Alongside sick leave and holidays, other key issues at the negotiating table have included wages, healthcare and staffing, with the rail carriers demanding that freight train crews be reduced from two workers to just one.

In an early effort to avert a strike, this July, Biden appointed a Presidential Emergency Board (PEB), consisting of three labor law experts, with the purpose of examining the dispute and proposing a fair settlement.

After a month-long investigation, the PEB issued its report on August 16. While recommending a headline-grabbing 24 percent compounded wage increase by 2024, the emergency board called on the unions to withdraw their demands for paid sick leave and added holidays, while also refusing to make recommendations on train crew size.

The next day, the rail carriers declared they were ​“prepared to meet with the rail unions and reach agreements based on the PEB report without delay.” But some rank-and-file railroad workers took to social media to express their disgust at the emergency board’s recommendations, angry that they did not resolve central issues around leave and attendance.

In a survey of over 3,000 rail workers from multiple unions conducted in late August by Railroad Workers United—an inter-union, cross-craft solidarity caucus of rank-and-file railroaders — a whopping 93 percent of respondents said they would vote to reject the PEB recommendations if they were offered as a tentative contract agreement.

One phrase from the PEB’s report particularly stood out to many workers, offering a clear picture of what their employers think of them: ​“The [rail] Carriers maintain that capital investment and risk are the reasons for their profits, not any contributions by labor.” 

“It really shows how out of touch rail carriers are to say that out loud,” Grooters said. ​“We as workers are fighting for human dignity at this point, just to be recognized as part of the reason that these carriers are extremely profitable.”

In the weeks after the PEB report, most of the unions reached tentative agreements with the railroads based on the emergency board’s recommendations. So far, at least two unions have ratified their agreements (the Transportation Communications Union and the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen), but members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) District 19 voted to reject their tentative deal, delaying a possible strike by that particular union to September 29. Others are still in the process of voting.

Strike averted

Entering this week, with a potential strike on the horizon on September 16, only SMART-TD and the BLET — the two largest rail unions — still did not have tentative agreements. In an apparent attempt to ratchet up the pressure, the rail carriers announced embargoes of fertilizer, ammonia and other chemical products crucial to agriculture, while Amtrak began canceling long-distance passenger service.

“The railroads are using shippers, consumers, and the supply chain of our nation as pawns in an effort to get our Unions to cave into their contract demands knowing that our members would never accept them,” SMART-TD President Jeremy Ferguson and BLET President Pierce said on September 11. ​“Our Unions will not cave into these scare tactics, and Congress must not cave into what can only be described as corporate terrorism.”

On Wednesday, citing the economic disruption a rail strike would cause, Senate Republicans attempted to end the negotiations by forcing the PEB’s recommendations onto the unions, a move that was blocked by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

“The CEOs in the freight rail industry need to understand that they cannot have it all,” Sanders said on the Senate floor. ​“The rail industry must agree to a contract that is fair and is just. And if they are not prepared to do that, it is time for Congress to stand on the side of workers for a change.”

“If [a railroad strike] is going to devastate the economy,” said Kaminkow, ​“then why doesn’t the government clip the wings of these Fortune 500 corporations that are pushing us to these kinds of limits? That question is never asked.”

Early Thursday morning, after a marathon bargaining session in Washington, D.C. convened by Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh that included Biden’s personal involvement, the unions and rail carriers reached a tentative deal that goes above the PEB’s recommendations by reportedly allowing workers to take voluntary assigned days off and one additional paid personal day.

In a joint statement, Ferguson and Pierce explained that ​“for the first time ever, the agreement provides our members with the ability to take time away from work to attend to routine and preventive medical care, as well as exemptions from attendance policies for hospitalizations and surgical procedures.” The deal also protects two-person crews ​“for the indefinite future,” according to the union presidents.

“These rail workers will get better pay, improved working conditions, and peace of mind around their healthcare costs: all hard-earned,” Biden said in a statement. ​“I thank the unions and rail companies for negotiating in good faith and reaching a tentative agreement that will keep our critical rail system working and avoid disruption of our economy.”

“Not over”

The tentative agreement must now go out to the union membership for review and approval, which could take several weeks.

“Now it’s up to the rank-and-file union members to evaluate this deal and determine whether it works for them,” Sanders said on Thursday. ​“I will respect and support whatever decision they make.”

Without the precise contract language in front of them, railroad workers have many questions about the details of the tentative agreement, including how exactly assigned days off will work. Some have already suggested on social media that they will vote to reject the deal.

Kaminkow said that he and his fellow workers are skeptical because they’ve ​“been lied to so much by politicians, union leaders and other powers-that-be.”

But BLET president Pierce stressed that union leadership has been hard at work communicating with members about negotiations throughout the bargaining process and will continue doing so.

“If they want to vote no, they can vote no. If they want to vote yes, they can vote yes,” Pierce said. ​“We’re not trying to impose anything. We’re trying to give them a chance to decide their future. But they can’t do that based on an emotional decision.”

If the tentative agreement is rejected, the railroads may again be headed for a national strike or lockout later this year, unless Congress imposes an agreement.

“We’re following the law, we’re going to be communicating with the members. They did not give up their right to strike,” said Pierce. ​“If the majority votes no, we will be right back in about eight weeks time to where we sat yesterday.”

“Even if we accept this agreement, it’s not over,” Grooters said. ​“We’re still going to be fighting for basic human dignity and to preserve our freight rail system and make sure it functions safely.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jeff Schuhrke.

Over Labor Day weekend this year, I launched into yet another damned health mess. As soon as I woke violently ill in the wee hours of Saturday morning, I began worrying about money. It’s always the money. Of course I wondered about what it was this time making me sick. Yet I worried so much more about how much damage I would do this time to our finances. It was enough to turn my suicidal ideation into a full blown chorus of, "Whatever it is, please let me die before the bills rise and rise and rise." That's what being an insured American who has fought for her life through cancer three times, abdominal hernias, gastric bleeds, Covid-19, MRSA, sepsis, and beyond generates. It isn't conducive to much positive thinking or feeling even as people urge me to stay positive, focused on recovery, and allow time for healing.

You see, though I've worked to make sure we always kept the very best health coverage (even topping off our Medicare coverage as best I thought possible), my body keeps throwing illness and injury my way and thereby draining the drained coffers and sending me into the tailspin of wondering why my life isn't more a liability now. Being a burden physically is bad enough as I watch my wonderful husband do his best not to express the resentment and disgust he must feel to have a wife who is so weak and impaired though 10 years younger than he. Adding to that burden, when I don't feel well or have another serious crisis, the burden of me includes loss of income through the gigs I gather and work to continue paying off my older medical debts. As much as my husband grows angry when calls and bills from Apria oxygen providers come in, imagine how he feels when surgeons, hospitals and extraneous others send their bills anew. He doesn't ever say so—ever—but I know it hurts.

So, mooching I go. Begging of friends to help, begging of strangers to help, if need be, and hoping against hope I can gather enough to mitigate my latest shell shock to our money situation. I hate losing the respect and closeness to people I care about because I beg. I hate it. I hate knowing people think I’m a loser for begging. Yet, I beg as the way to help. It never helps that I have worked myself sick to keep us covered. It isn't enough to have worked hard for half a century. I became little more than an internet panhandler, begging and hoping and all the while full of shame that will never wash away.

This summer, I was treated to a cruise by one of my dear friends in the social justice movement. Everything was paid for except any souvenirs or trinkets that I might want. Imagine the generosity of that. But also imagine my guilt and the judgment others felt to see me—the health care moocher—enjoying anything like that at all. I ought to have been ashamed, eh? Then when I returned, as if in punishment, I came down with Covid-19. Sicker than Omicron is supposed to make us, I got the delightful Remdesivir treatment, and two weeks later I was improving. My body launched into the current crisis almost immediately. Hospitalization, emergency surgery, etc, and bills, bills, bills. The moocher earns her due, I guess.

If there were a little less shame to go along with this whole cycle it would be good. If I were able to look myself in the eye in the mirror, that would also be good. If I hadn't lost the love and support of people I respect who have already helped me over and over, I dream of that. And to not be a damned burden?

Well, that would be only possible if we lived in a society in which the health care system didn't punish us in every way, including financially and with relationships to friends, family, and beyond.

We all must look at what our ingrained beliefs have wrought. We're mad at ourselves and each other for the financial damage dome to us by health events. Why? Why do we get angry and judgmental about illness? Why are the insurance companies let off the hook?

When profits come first, people fall behind somewhere in the priorities. I've always known that. I just didn't know how far behind. A truly humane, patient-first health system requires we shed our bias against those in our lives who have succumbed to the current inhumane system and that we see one another as equals when our bodies cry out for care. I can do that. And an improved, expanded Medicare for All system that is protected from the greed we allow to permeate our current system would spare us all so much sorrow and suffering. Until I do finally give up or die, I will keep fighting for that. Your life is worth that, and mine once was too.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Donna Smith.

The risk of civil unrest is rising in over 100 nations, with the "worst yet to come," according to an analysis published Thursday by the U.K.-based consulting firm Verisk Maplecroft.

"With more than 80% of countries around the world seeing inflation above 6%, socioeconomic risks are reaching critical levels."

Incorporating data going back to 2017, the latest update to the firm's civil unrest index (CUI) shows that the last quarter of this year "saw more countries witness an increase in risks from civil unrest than at any time since the index was released," the analysis states. "Out of 198 countries, 101 saw an increase in risk, compared with only 42 where the risk decreased."

"In December 2020, we warned of a new era of civil unrest, projecting that 75 countries would see an increase in civil unrest risk by August 2022. The reality has been far worse, with 120 countries witnessing an increase in risk since then," the firm pointed out.

"With more than 80% of countries around the world seeing inflation above 6%, socioeconomic risks are reaching critical levels," the analysis explains. "Almost half of all the countries on the CUI are now categorized as high- or extreme-risk, and a large number of states are expected to experience a further deterioration over the next six months."

In a separate index, measuring government stability within countries, the analysis found that 42 nations saw an increased risk of having their governments challenged or toppled compared with 27 countries where it dropped. The firm said that "although the negative trend is less marked than for civil unrest, rising food and energy prices will make it more difficult for governments to manage popular discontent."

"Over the coming months," the firm is now warning, "governments across the world are about to get an answer to a burning question: Will protests sparked by socioeconomic pressure transform into broader and more disruptive anti-government action?"

As Jimena Blanco, the company's chief analyst, put it: "We're talking about numerous powder kegs around the world simply waiting for that spark to be ignited. We don't know where that spark will come first."

However, she told The Guardian, "the situation is so bad in places like Haiti, Myanmar, and Sudan that it is hard for them to become much worse. Therefore, countries in Europe that have to date enjoyed much more stable environments are likely to see bigger increases in risk."

The analysis specifically raises alarm about Bosnia and Herzegovina, Switzerland, Netherlands, Germany, and Ukraine—which was invaded by Russia in February, and continues to endure a war with global repercussions, especially in terms of energy.

Echoing Blanco, Torbjorn Soltvedt, the firm's principal analyst for the Middle East and North Africa, told Reuters that "over the winter, it wouldn't come as a surprise if some of the developed nations in Europe start to see more serious forms of civil unrest."

Describing expected unrest in an interview with Bloomberg, Blanco emphasized that "these are significant events in terms of disrupting everyday life," and some emerging markets could see "rioting, looting, even attempts to overthrow the government."

According to The Guardian:

Blanco said political events in Latin America "may feed into drivers of unrest."

Chile is preparing to vote on a new constitution, she said, and Brazil is heading into a polarized general election. "In Argentina the government is effectively collapsing amid ongoing unrest," she added. "The question is whether the unrest will escalate into something more profound."

Reiterating previous analysis, the firm said Thursday that in terms of government stability, "middle-income countries that were rich enough to offer social protection during the Covid-19 pandemic, but are struggling to maintain high levels of social spending during 2022, are likely to face the highest risk."

"For governments unable to spend their way out of the crisis, repression is likely to be the main response to anti-government protests," the analysis states, specifically pointing to Iran. "But suppression comes with its own risks, leaving disgruntled populations with fewer mechanisms for channeling their dissent at a time of growing frustration with the status quo."

As an example, the firm noted the Turkish government's attempt to criminalize independent economic data, while adding that "this is far from an isolated case."

Verisk Maplecroft's freedom of opinion and expression index shows that over the past two years, 66 countries have tightened restrictions. The analysis says that "Chile and Sri Lanka—both of which have been rocked by large-scale civil unrest this year—account for the biggest increase in risk for this issue."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

The post Israel’s Premature ‘Victory’ Celebration: The defining War in Gaza Is Yet to Be Fought  appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Ramzy Baroud.

At a May 6 meeting in Cambodia’s capital Phnom Penh, the ASEAN Coordinating Center for Humanitarian Assistance (AHA) agreed to deliver aid to Myanmar under the supervision of the military regime, which would distribute it to those in need.

However, aid workers in northwest Myanmar’s Sagaing region told RFA Burmese that as of Monday none of the promised aid had been delivered there or other regions with refugees in need, including Chin, Kayah and Kayin states.

“ASEAN’s help hasn’t made it to Sagaing yet,” said Thet Oo, who is assisting victims of conflict with the People-to-People Program in the region’s Yinmarbin and Salingyi townships.

“It's been three months since their meeting, but nothing has come to Yinmarbin district at all.”

Thet Oo warned ASEAN not to trust the junta’s promises.

“The junta, which is terrorizing us, will never provide the aid or assistance they agreed to with ASEAN,” he said.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs announced on Aug. 3 that 866,000 people had joined the ranks of Myanmar’s refugees since the military’s Feb. 1, 2021 coup, bringing the total number to more than 1.2 million, or more than 2% of the country’s population of 54.4 million.

Of the new refugees, some 470,000 were forced to flee their homes in Sagaing, where clashes between junta troops and the armed opposition are among the deadliest and most frequent in the nation.

Thet Oo said his organization is struggling to provide assistance with only donations to rely on.

Meanwhile, the military is carrying out a scorched earth offensive in the region, conducting raids on villages and setting them on fire, and creating new refugees each day, he said.

In neighboring Chin state, where fierce fighting is also a daily occurrence, refugees are also facing severe shortages, aid workers told RFA.

“The need for food and medicine is still very great. There isn’t enough food in the mountains. No NGOs have yet come here,” a spokesman for the Mindat Township Refugee Camps Management Committee said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“Since the beginning, when we heard ASEAN would be providing assistance through the junta, we have been skeptical. It was clear that Chin state would not be included in the distribution program. Sure enough, no aid has reached the refugees in Mindat township to date.”

Repeated calls by RFA seeking comment from junta Deputy Information Minister Maj. Gen. Zaw Min Tun on the status of the ASEAN aid distribution went unanswered.

Agreement panned

ASEAN’s decision to deliver assistance to Myanmar’s refugees through the junta was slammed by the country’s shadow National Unity Government (NUG), as well as the Karen National Union (KNU), Karenni National Progressive Party and Chin National Front ethnic parties as “unacceptable” in a joint statement on May 30.

The groups, which the junta says are terrorist organizations, were not extended an invitation by ASEAN to the May 6 meeting in Phnom Penh at the request of the military regime, nor was the U.N. secretary general’s special representative to Myanmar, Nolin Heza.

Win Myat Aye, NUG minister for Humanitarian Affairs and Disaster Management, told RFA this week that ASEAN’s plan to provide aid through the junta will not do anything for the people who are suffering the most in Myanmar.

“What ASEAN is doing …  is impractical. It hasn’t been successful because it never reached those who really need it for more than three months now,” he said.

“NUG is now already working to meet the actual needs on the ground. We are working in cooperation with international organizations, so the information we act on will be true and we can provide the necessary help. … In order to be successful, we need to help with real action, not just words."

Win Myat Aye noted that the NUG disaster ministry had been providing shelter and medicine to refugees for the last 18 months since the coup.

Aid workers helping refugees in Chin, Kayah and Kayin states, as well as some townships in Sagaing and Magway regions, told RFA that even if the junta is working to deliver assistance from ASEAN, it only controls Myanmar’s cities and its administration is broken in rural areas.

KNU spokesman Pado Saw Tawney said that the junta is incapable of reaching all of the country’s refugees on its own.

“There are over a million [refugees] according to available statistics. But in fact, what we believe is that there may be 2 million or more,” he said.

“This situation has become a problem that cannot be solved internally. It requires cooperation with the international community. … That's the bottom line. Nothing will happen if it is carried out by the junta alone.”

The U.N. humanitarian affairs office said in its statement on Aug. 3 that the security and humanitarian aid situations in Myanmar have worsened significantly as fighting continues throughout the country. The agency said efforts to deliver assistance to refugees have been hamstrung by military restrictions on the transportation of essential goods, including food and medical supplies.

Reports of the worsening refugee situation in Myanmar came as the country’s opposition groups and analysts called on ASEAN to adopt stronger measures in its dealing with the junta following the bloc’s 55th Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Phnom Penh from July 31 to Aug. 6.

During the gathering, most ASEAN member states criticized the junta for failing to implement the bloc’s agreements and for its July 25 execution of four democracy activists, including former student leader Ko Jimmy and a former lawmaker from Myanmar’s deposed National League for Democracy party.

However, the wording of a statement issued at the end of the meeting was toned down due to the objection of the Myanmar delegation. The decision regarding Myanmar will be taken at the annual ASEAN Summit in November after studying and evaluating the extent to which the bloc’s 2021 Consensus is implemented by the junta.

Kyaw Zaw, spokesman for the NUG presidential office, said it is no longer enough for ASEAN to simply make criticisms. Instead, he said, the bloc should undertake “practical measures,” noting that there is no resolution in sight for Myanmar’s political crisis more than 18 months after the takeover.

“The 5-Point Consensus (5PC) has been disregarded and is still being ignored and it has been almost a year and a half since the coup,” he said, referring to an agreement between the junta and ASEAN to end violence in Myanmar during an emergency meeting held by the bloc in April 2021.

“We’re thankful that they expressed their concern and they said they condemn the Myanmar issue. But I'd like to reiterate that now is the time to talk less and take action more.”

Kyaw Zaw said he welcomed the ASEAN foreign ministers’ decisions not to allow high-ranking representatives of the junta to attend the bloc’s ministerial-level meetings in the future, set a precise time frame for the implementation of the ASEAN Consensus, and to hold formal discussions with the NUG.

Zero implementation

Under the 5PC, the junta agreed to end to violence in the country, facilitate constructive dialogue among all parties, and allow the mediation of such talks by a special ASEAN envoy. The 5PC also calls for the provision of ASEAN-coordinated humanitarian assistance and a visit to Myanmar by an ASEAN delegation to meet with all parties.

Even regime leader Snr. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing acknowledged that the junta had failed to hold up its end of the bargain on the consensus in a televised speech earlier this month in which he announced that the junta was extending by six months the state of emergency it declared following last year’s coup. He blamed the coronavirus pandemic and “political instability” for the failure and said he will implement “what we can” from the 5PC this year, provided it does not “jeopardize the country’s sovereignty.”

The junta’s failure to abide by the 5PC drew criticism last week from U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who told Voice of America’s Khmer service that if the agreement is not met, ASEAN should adopt new measures, including suspending Myanmar’s membership in the bloc.

Calls to junta spokesman Zaw Min Tun on ASEAN’s criticism went unanswered.

The junta’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement that inviting a lower-level delegate from Myanmar to the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting and related meetings was a violation of the bloc’s charter.

Thein Tun Oo, executive director of the pro-military Thayninga Strategic Studies Institute, warned that ASEAN would become weaker if Myanmar were to be suspended.

“Currently, it’s not easy to suspend Myanmar straight away. But even if they were to make such a decision, Myanmar's special interests would not be affected,” he said.

“We think ASEAN would become weakened and break up because of the [suspension.]"

Sai Kyi Zin Soe, a political analyst, said removing Myanmar from the bloc would only lower the pressure on the junta.

“ASEAN doesn’t have much leverage now. Expelling Myanmar would be the worst case scenario. It is within the bounds of what they can do, but I don't think they will go that far,” he said.

“If they cut Myanmar off like that, it will be more difficult to engage ... so, it’s unlikely.”

ASEAN Special Envoy for Myanmar Prak Sokhonn is scheduled to make his third official visit to the country in September.

During his last visit in July, the envoy did not meet with any armed ethnic groups that are opposed to the junta’s coup, nor the NLD, which won Myanmar’s 2020 election in a landslide victory before being deposed in last year’s putsch.

Observers said Sokhonn’s failure to meet the opposition or other anti-junta stakeholders during his visit would only serve to legitimize military rule.

Translated by Khin Maung Nyane. Written in English by Joshua Lipes.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Burmese.

Climate campaigners on Wednesday once again sounded the alarm as historic drought conditions and massive wildfires scorched Europe during a summer in which nearly 12,000 people across the continent have been killed by extreme heat.

"With droughts, floods, and extreme weather on the rise, it's clear that climate breakdown is well and truly here."

The European Drought Observatory said Wednesday that more than 60% of the land area of the European Union and United Kingdom is now under drought warnings or alerts.

"This European summer has included the continent's most severe drought in decades, with major disruption caused to people and industry. Sustained climate action to stop droughts like this is the best investment European nations could make," the London-based Environmental Justice Foundation tweeted.

Taking aim at government subsidies for the fossil fuel and agriculture industries, the group added, "Here's one step we can take for a healthier, happier planet: Stop pumping public money into industries which are actively destroying it."

The U.K. Green Party tweeted that "with droughts, floods, and extreme weather on the rise, it's clear that climate breakdown is well and truly here. Time for the U.K. government to make the right decisions, and act now."

Andrea Toreti, a senior researcher at the European Commission's Joint Research Center (EC-JRC)—which compiles data for the European Drought Observatory—said that "at the moment... this seems to be the worst" drought in Europe in five centuries, although other scientists have concluded that extreme dry spells on the continent in recent years were "unprecedented" in millennia.

Toreti said EC-JRC has not fully analyzed the current drought "because it is still ongoing, but based on my experience I think that this is perhaps even more extreme than 2018."

"Just to give you an idea the 2018 drought was so extreme that, looking back at least the last 500 years, there were no other events similar to the drought of 2018," he added, "but this year I think it is really worse than 2018."

The 2018 drought and heatwave saw record-breaking temperatures and wildfires ravage much of Europe. Researchers at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and World Weather Attribution estimated that the climate emergency made the heatwave two to five times more likely.

Toreti said EC-JRC expects the current drought to worsen, while warning that drying, warming rivers are exacerbating the crisis.

"Our analysis indeed is pointing to extremely low flows affecting almost all the European rivers," he said.

Dry conditions are fueling wildfires raging in southwest France, which is enduring its fourth heatwave of the year and where, according to Agence France-Presse, more than 6,000 people have been evacuated from the Gironde region as fire that destroyed more than 20,000 hectares of forest in July is flaring anew.

Meanwhile in the United Kingdom, the Meteorological Office on Tuesday issued an amber heat warning for large parts of southern England and some of Wales for Thursday through Sunday ahead of forecast high temperatures of at least 90°F over those four days. The move follows the Met Office's first-ever red extreme heat warning last month.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Log landing with smoke from a new fire, Siskiyou Range, southern Oregon. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

In this New York Times article, Why Does the American West Have So Many Wildfires? published on August 2, 2022, is another news article full of misinformation about fire ecology.

The journalists did get the ultimate cause of wildfires correct—changing climate, but they go on to list other “proximate” causes that would not have any significance without climate warming.

The article strongly correlates climate change with hotter, drier conditions as one of the main factors driving large blazes—this important message used to be ignored by the media and is now getting more print and airtime. Hot, dry conditions make it easier for vegetation to ignite and spread. Plus, the fire season when vegetation is susceptible to fire is longer—all good points.

But there is much in the article that, while some might say I’m nit-picking, I still believe I need to point out the problems.

It says there are four key factors leading to larger blazes. The first reason, they declare, “is the “Western United States has what’s called a Mediterranean climate.”

However, only California is dominated by a Mediterranean climate of winter rain and summer drought. Most of the West has a Continental Climate dominated by cold, snowy winters and often summer monsoons, especially on the Great Plains and Southwest. The different regional climates do affect wildfires. For instance, New Mexico’s fire season tends to be spring because summer monsoons reduce fire ignitions and spread.

It also cites Santa Anna winds as the reason for large blazes—but again, this only applies to California. The wind is essential in all large blazes, but Santa Anna winds are a unique feature of southern California.

While it notes that vegetation is adapted to fires, it also warns that giant sequoia trees are being “killed in unprecedented numbers.”

This alarmism over the recent loss of sequoias to wildfire fails to acknowledge that the main adaptation of sequoias to wildfire is that they tend to regenerate after sizeable high severity fires that “kill” the majority of trees, including many sequoia trees themselves.

High severity fires are not extremely common anywhere, so a typical sequoia grove may only experience a high severity fire once in a blue moon or even longer. However, since they can live thousands of years, to replace themselves, they only need a large blaze once in a thousand years to create a successful regeneration of the species. So we may be in that once-in-a-thousand-year period.

The piece suggests, “Before the modern settlement of the American West that began in the 1860s, forested lands burned naturally from lightning sparks or intentionally by native communities as a form of forest maintenance.” As a result, of settlement and efforts to suppress fires, the articles suggests we have unnaturally dense forests.

The fact that sequoia trees require high severity fire also demonstrates that the standard narrative that low severity, frequent fires set by Indians precluded large blazes  precluded large blazes isn’t matched by evolutionary history. If Indian burning had successfully thwarted large blazes, we would not have sequoia forests.

Indeed, many of the sequoia groves in the Sierra Nevada can be traced back to the Medieval Warm Spell, which occurred between 800-1300 AD. During this period, the climate was like the conditions we are experiencing today, with extreme drought and heat. During this time, the Anasazi Indians abandoned their cliff dwellings to seek permanent water along the Rio Grande, and Vikings colonized Greenland. The warm, dry conditions promoted extensive wildfires in the Sierra Nevada and elsewhere.

The other factor blamed for “dense forests” is the Forest Service’s 10 AM policy, which tried to extinguish all fires by the morning of their discovery. It was essentially a “paper policy” that had little real teeth. In the 1930s, most of the Forest Service lands in the West were roadless. It begs credibility to suggest that rangers riding mules traveling across the rugged, often trailless country and working with shovels and Pulaski effectively extinguished fires.

A better explanation is that sometime in the 1940s, the western US entered a period of cooler, moister weather that precluded ignitions and rapid fire spread. Of course, this reduction in wildfire influence was attributed to “successful” fire suppression, but Nature was suppressing fire. Indeed, the climate was so cool that by the 1970s, glaciers in the PNW were growing, and some scientists predicted we were entering another Ice Age.

And what do you get when you have more moisture in the typically dry West? Higher seedling survival, which in turn creates “denser” forest stands.

The article suggests that fir trees have expanded into lower elevation forests due to a lack of fire. Another explanation is that cooler, moister weather for much of the mid-1900s created favorable conditions for the establishment of the moisture-loving fir. Once established, younger fir could persist in the shady, cool conditions created by older trees.

The main reason for large fires is climate. I can guarantee if the majority of the western landscape suddenly were to be dominated by cool, moist conditions as, say, found in rainy Southeast Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, most wildfires in the West would cease—regardless of the amount of “fuels” or biomass present.

We are experiencing the worst drought in a thousand years (since the Medieval Warm Spell), and average temperatures have risen. High temperatures rapidly increase fire spread. For every 1-degree rise, we see a 25 times rise in fire spread. The same rapid increase in fire spread is also due to higher wind speeds. These factors, in combination with plenty of human-caused ignitions, are the real reason we are seeing large western fires.

The ultimate cause of our large fires is climate warming. Solutions panned by agencies and politicians like thinning forests and even prescribed burning ultimately fails when there are extreme fire weather conditions. In some cases, this kind of “active forest management” can even enhance fire spread. For instance, one review article found that protected landscapes where logging is prohibited, like parks and wilderness, tend to have lower severity blazes compared to lands where logging and other “active management” is permitted.

To reduce large blazes, we must deal with climate warming. In the meantime, we put much more effort into home hardening so they can better survive wildfires.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by George Wuerthner.

Yesterday's data showing negative gross domestic product (GDP) growth for the second consecutive quarter has sparked a debate about whether the U.S. economy is in recession. Below are some quick thoughts interpreting the numbers, and some larger questions about recession and inflation.

• We're very likely not in recession currently, even though we've had two straight quarters of negative GDP growth. The "two straight quarters" criterion for a recession is a rough rule of thumb. The more generally accepted arbiter of business cycles in the U.S. is the National Bureau of Economic Research Business Cycle Dating Committee, which weighs changes in many economic variables to determine the start and end dates of recessions. The most notable statistics arguing against the view that we're in recession currently are unemployment and employment growth. Both remain quite strong.
  • The negative growth in the first quarter of 2022 was mostly driven by statistical quirks that hid some real strength in the economy. Specifically, exports were quite weak and imports quite strong, but both of these measures can be pretty volatile. Net exports in the second quarter, for example, were positive and added to growth. But, if I had to choose one measure of the strength of the domestic economy that stripped out volatile measures that could be introducing noise in our assessment, I'd choose domestic demand growth (known officially as final sales to domestic purchasers)—this is a measure of spending by U.S.-based households, businesses, and governments that strips out volatile changes in firms' inventories. In the first quarter, this domestic demand growth was acceptably strong, rising at a 2.0% rate.
  • Conversely, fundamental growth in the second quarter was weak. Domestic demand growth actually shrank in the quarter. On top of that fundamental weakness, a statistical quirk—a huge decline in the contribution to GDP made by changes in firms' inventories—also weighed unusually on growth.
  • In short, the negative growth in the first quarter of 2022 looked much worse than it was. This is far less true for the negative growth in the second quarter.
• The weakness in yesterday's report has the fingerprints of Federal Reserve interest rate increases on it. Before this week, the Fed had sharply raised interest rates (by 0.75%—its largest single rate increase since 1994) in its last meeting. Interest rate hikes tend to weigh heavily on business investment and residential building. These were key indicators of weakness in the second quarter report. Business spending on structures and equipment contracted, and residential investment fell at its fastest rate since the pandemic recession in the second quarter of 2020. If you ignore that quarter, residential investment fell at its fastest pace since 2010—on the heels of the Great Recession.
  • On Wednesday, the Fed again pushed rates up sharply by another 0.75%, a very large rate hike that will layer on top of yesterday's GDP weakness. The Fed may already have overshot and secured a recession in the coming months. But either way, they should slow the pace of rate increases substantially in coming months and be ready to go into neutral or even cut rates if weakness persists.
• Yesterday's report showed a significant slowdown in the most relevant price index the Fed should be watching. Core prices (stripping out food and energy) rose by just 4.4% at an annualized rate, the slowest pace since the first quarter of 2021.

A recession in the coming months would be exceptionally troubling. It would largely result from a policy mistake of too-rapid interest rate tightening by the Fed—one that could have been avoided. If a recession hits when inflation remains high—mostly driven by global developments in energy and food markets—the Fed might feel pressure to not cut rates in order to bleed remaining inflation out of the economy. This would be extremely damaging and threaten to prolong the recession.

Finally, if the wrong narrative—that today's inflation was driven by too-generous fiscal relief—takes hold, it could make it even harder for Congress to undertake necessary recovery measures. In short, the inflationary episode we're in could induce political hesitancy to address a future recession, and that could end up being inflation's greatest cost to U.S. households.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Josh Bivens.

“Blackout” by MadPole is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

There’s a lot of talk of off-gridding these days. Folks who want to get away from the electricity that controls our lives. The Internet. Social media. Twitter. Facebook. Meta. More and more AIs are taking over our “jobs” of perceiving and processing our experiences of the world. They were extensions and tools for our brains, but now they are beginning to influence what and how we do the cogito ergo sum thing. We are “lit up” all the time, overstimulated by electricity. Some philosophers fear we may be on the threshold of a dystopian nightmare, about to be absorbed into a hivemind blob we can’t escape from, devoid of individuality and spontaneity.

Maybe we need some blackouts, some grid downtime. Solar flares. I can still recall (vaguely) the blackout of the Northeast in 1965. Lights out. Folks perplexed, worried. What will we do? Some people blamed Bob Dylan, saying that had he not gone electric at Newport that summer, the gods would have stayed indifferent, instead of going all deus ex machina, and bringing in the Internet to control us. Pete Seeger almost went apoplectic with an ax, according to one representation of his rage, which supposedly symbolized the falling out Judas feelings so many folkies harbored toward the Bard. Rumor is he took out Rhode Island alone with the pull from “Like A Rolling Stone.” Look at him now. Who’s laughing? You?

Speaking of harbors. We’re in rolling pearl harbors mode now. Pandemics. Climate change. Nukes. Democracy replaced with authoritarianism and fascism and strong man-ism. General Mark Milley and think tanks are already saying that democracy’s kaput and that we’re just dog paddling around in the shallow end waiting for the tsunami to arrive. Just when we’ve given government-by-and-for-the-people a real good ride down the highway of history — wham! there’s a blow-out and we’re hugging trees and going through the windshield deep into infinity, like astral projections going home to roost. Damn. If only Dylan had stayed acoustic. Fucker.

The US government has been quietly but consistently warning that our “infrastructure” is woefully vulnerable to attack by Russia (and probably China, too), which means they’ll be a pearl harbor for that, too. Yep. You can see it coming. Like that dubious ransomware farce involving Colonial pipelines that created an evil windfall for Big Petroleum. Russians have a lot to answer for. I was watching The Great on Hulu the other month. Some great sex scenes. (See my review.) But I’ve read that our grids aren’t as vulnerable as we like to think they are. It’s not like a baseball catcher going without a cup, making vulnerable his dangling ganglia to foul tips out of the mitt and into the gravy. Our electric grids are a “hodgepodge,” according to Ashley Dawson, author of People’s Power, which delineates “The Fossil Capitalist Death Spiral” we’re in and advocates some green solutions and socialist politics. (See my review.) Dawson writes,

“The US grid is a ferociously complicated system, by some estimates the largest machine in the world. There are roughly 3,300 electric companies that provide power to individual citizens and commercial users of power in the United States…The grid was built to withstand all but the most freak accidents. Yet, as Lovins rather poetically put it, “possible rare events, each of vanishingly low probability, are infinitely numerous, so we live in a world full of nasty surprises.””

Freak accidents. Read in bright lights: rolling pearl harbor event coming. Cofer Black’s on it though.

There are … three main systems: the Eastern Interconnection, which serves the area east of the Rockies and part of northern Texas; the Western Interconnection, which encompasses the states west of the Rockies; and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which covers most of the Lone Star State. If you were thinking of taking out the grid, or one of these three interconnections, stop it. That’s terrorism. And though we could use the relief of a nice grid downtime with candles again and the sound of your lover’s voice in the pleasant dark with quietude devoid of electronic hums, and wine. Also, turn off your mobile. You don’t need the updates. Just keep making love.

Texas and ERCOT “suffered” a serious outage last year. Jeez, it was tough. The governor was especially upset, as it put the execution of Black men way behind schedule, which meant more unplanned last meals for more unwanted humans in the Lone Star state. As a Texas “practical engineering” blog put it:

“When the storm did hit on Valentine’s Day, it really was one for the history books. Three major facts to illustrate this point: First, it was extremely cold…It was the coldest many places had practically ever been. The next point is that it was not just a local event. The storm had significant impacts across the entire state of Texas and beyond. Finally, the duration of frigid temperatures was just so long. Large portions of the state were below freezing for more than 7 continuous days. That might not sound like a lot to those of you in northern climes, maybe even a welcome respite. But, in most parts of Texas, that is unheard of.”

It was a Blue Valentine’s Day. And if you had blue balls, you froze them off. Cattle moaned and steamed on the ponderosa, and muttered to each other, “I never-r-r thought I’d long to be tossed on the bar-r-r-bie, but, Jesus-us-us, it’s cold.”

Texas came to mind. It wasn’t for the North or the South. Meaning it was for the South and had slavery and later Juneteenth. And Jim Bowie is said to have hid under his bed at crunch time at the Alamo. Pie Alamo. San Antone. Santa Ana and Roseanne Roseannadanna. But Texas came into consciousness most recently as I was listening to a podcast — Blackout. It’s a two-season production starring Rami Malek. The IMDB blurb goes:

“Academy Award® winner Rami Malek stars in this apocalyptic thriller as a small-town radio DJ fighting to protect his family and community after the power grid goes down nationwide, upending modern civilization. BLACKOUT stars and is executive produced by Rami Malek and produced by QCode and Endeavor Content. BLACKOUT was Written and created by Scott Conroy. Directed by Shawn Christensen.”

The family starts out in a small New Hampshire town and eventually makes its “escape” to the nation’s one operating grid — and the promise of a return to “normality” — in Texas. God help us. I could only think of the Black Mirror episode with the Black History Museum where white visitors are invited (encouraged) to throw the switch on the execution of a Black man preserved forever in a holographic application.

Rami is DJ Simon Itani, spinning platters, and sputtering groovy advice on good living, and has, by that token, a certain degree of power, some control over the narrative he sees unfolding when the blackout occurs. He lives there with his wife, Carla (Chloe Brooks), and their two teenagers, Izzy (Seychelle Gabriel), a girl, and Hunter (T.C. Carter), a boy. The town of Berlin, New Hampshire becomes the focal point of small town community and self-sufficiency as the nationwide outage continues unabated and without word from the government as to cause or remedy. Berlin just goes on and on, day by day, as resources dwindle, tensions rise, and political factions wrestle for control of the parochial chain of command.

It’s quiet up there along the Canadian border, but Itani notes the difference between quiet and silence. He goes, “Funny thing about silence — if you sit with it long enough you might hear something that was there all along.” The trailer adds the requisite promise of tension:

https://youtu.be/C4ZVCemsLhM

Season 1 establishes the townspeople of Berlin, who become a microcosmic set of the nation. Season 2 sees some intrepid resisters, including the Itamis, to the authority established in Berlin by an older fascist woman, Madeline and her barking, enforcing dogmatists, escaping to Boston and Ipswich and then on to Texas.

Many people may be familiar with Rami Malek’s outstanding work, as systems hacker, Elliot Alderson, in the cult classic TV series, Mr. Robot. The malaise that affects Elliot in Mr. Robot makes him a kind of Everyman. There’s something wrong with the system and the way people are tired into it and he has the skills to disrupt it, but at a great cost. Similarly, Simon Itani represents a kind of hip, educated and balanced individual who begins to “lose it” in Blackout due to the breakdown of the system and how it affects his family especially. Mr. Robot takes on the teeming chaos of urban living amidst mostly visual information overload, while Blackout returns us to hearing — our own thoughts again and each other.

The language of Blackout is banal and, often, cliche-ridden. Is it a deficit in the script-writing? Or is the script written to reflect the downward trajectory people have taken as they get caught up in the online shortcuts, memes, tropes, repetition of tweets, predictable snarks, and language that doesn’t adequately reflect the sophistication of a deep engagement with the world. It’s true folks don’t go around quoting Schopenhauer very much, but a reasonably well-educated person listening in to the dialogue of Blackout — with the exception of the Itanis and a college instructor named Wren — might think the political philosophy of representative democracy might be too complex and abstract for their drive-through minds. So much of what one hears coming out of their mouths is trite and hackneyed that you wonder if this is what we’ve become — near-bots who talk shit and opine, “It is what is” — and the nationwide blackout becomes a symbol of our failure to operate on full watts as we head for a new Dark Age. If we lost all power indefinitely starting now, how would it affect you dear reader/listener?

I tried to find parallels to the story. HG Wells War of the Worlds. George R. Stewart’s Earth Abides. But there’s no war, per s with aliens from outer space. No Russians either. It’s an inside job. It does have some of the Earth Abides vibe. The silence is a character. But there’s only one guy left in Abides. And the title is from Ecclesiastes. It’s a shrug at our loss. Fuck us. We let it happen. History warned us enough times. We shrugged. Earth shrugs back and the Sun Also Rises. Fuckers who killed the Canon should be shot out of it — like circus clowns. Simon Itani says, above, “Funny thing about silence — if you sit with it long enough you might hear something that was there all along.” Sitting in the rubble of it all. Getting Darker.

Yes, it turns out that the blackout is not caused by Russians (can you believe it!?) but by one Julian (Andre Royo), who goes by the name of “The Rook.” You know, as in chess. He’s a red-light district bulb missing some filaments. Royo hams up his Boston accent and ends up reminding me of childhood thugs I wanted to punch the lights out of. (But, like Rodney Dangerfield says to Sam Kinison in Back to School, “Hey, I’m a lover not a fighter.”) Julian, oy. When he tells some of the survivors about why he did it, you wanna bury his pall. He fucked up big time. He tells Wren and the Itanis:

Julian: Excuse me, after some coordinated analog attacks on the power grid in the real world, the plan was to withhold access to Black Start until we were ready to re-engage the grid. Two weeks. It was only supposed to be for two weeks. Enough time to wash away the structures and systems that were failing us while allowing us to rebuild quickly…When it was clear that the reboot has suffered a catastrophic failure, the group fractured. They broke into factions. Rooks took control of their pawns and pawns, held territories like their own personal fiefdoms. The last several months were unfortunate.

Wren: Unfortunate? You broke the world, and that’s all you have to say.

Holy Chucky Cheese! What a dipshit is Julian. And he reminds you of some of the powers that be — Trump, sure, but Pence, Biden, McConnell, Nancy — the whole overstuffed clown car. Unfortunate!? And here we are at history’s end, the real one — not Francis Fuckyomama’s comic book Hegel version — and we get shruggleberry hounds going, “How unfortunate.” The short: Julians’ no Elliot Andersson. Mr. Robot showed restraint. But then they cancelled the show anyway.

And if downed grids nationwide weren’t bad enough, wouldn’t you know that the only one up again is the Lone Star State’s. Now that’s dystopia. Talk of the regionalisation of the Internet is currently underway. Zones of influence. The Chinese, the Russains, the Europeans, the Latin-based peoples, and North America all with their own Internets, now that the value of hivemindedness and managerial containment hs been recognized by the deep state powers that be — armies of Julians at work to fuck it all up in the name of geopolitical chess maneuvers in the dark. Reminds me of me days as a systems engineer, admiring the simplicity and power of switches over routers, the MAC address over the IP — you’d take it every time. Plus I had a CCDA as a creative outlet for techie wonking around. LANs, MANs, WANs — my vision wasn’t limited and electricity was my friend.

(By the way, before I forget, the production is from QCode, which uses an immersion sound system to make you feel you are amidst the dipshits. Realistic that way. They tell us not to operate farm equipment while listening.)

I’ve been thinking a lot about rolling pearl harbors lately. A pearl harbor is when the shit hits the fan suddenly and catastrophically and you’re taking on water, like the Titanic, and naively cursing yourself for not having booked a voyage on the Lusitania when you had the chance. Now imagine a series of such occurrences in your life in quick succession, and, in your case, there’s no naked Kate Winslet from the upper deck for you to paint with your manly but hungry artist brushes. We’ew running out of Muses, taking on cold water, while the band plays on — the Nero Quartet, Grosse Fugue. My favorite complexity in the world.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by John Kendall Hawkins.

Meanwhile, two men recorded this act on their phones. They inform the child’s mother and head in the direction of the alleged kidnapper. The mother, along with those who had filmed the act, get into a physical altercation with the alleged kidnapper. During this scuffle, one of the men slaps the alleged kidnapper several times. In the end, she confesses and apologises.

Social media users have shared the video and claimed the mother was deaf and dumb. Hence she did not notice when her child got kidnapped. A Facebook user posted this video with the same claim. (Archived link)

Another user also amplified the video on Facebook.

Fact-check

A disclaimer appears at the 0:16-mark of the viral video. It states that the video “should be considered for entertainment purposes only”. 

Upon further investigation, we found the same video posted on June 7 by a Facebook page called ‘Ankur Jatuskaran’. Ankur Jatuskaran is a video creator who often makes prank videos and shares them on his YouTube channel and Facebook page.

We examined the Facebook page closely and discovered that it has previously posted several such scripted videos (link 1, link 2, link 3). Apart from this, we noticed that the man seen in the viral clip is Ankur himself. He features as an actor in most of the videos.

To sum it up, the viral video that shows child kidnapping is actually scripted. In the past, Alt News has fact-checked multiple such videos which are actually dramatised or made for awareness. However, because the disclaimers are not being featured properly, they are often mistakenly shared as real incidents.

The post Staged child kidnapping video viral yet again appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Kinjal.

The post The Worst is Yet to Come: When the Center Does Not Hold appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Richard Falk.

The move comes just months after a similar declaration from Los Angeles, whose port abuts Long Beach’s to make up the San Pedro Bay Port Complex — the U.S.’s largest port, handling more than 275 million metric tons of furniture, car parts, clothes, food, and other cargo every year. Together, the two cities’ resolutions represent one of the world’s most aggressive shipping decarbonization targets and reflect a growing desire among policymakers and environmental advocates to drive down the industry’s emissions.

“We need major shipping companies to lead the way to a cleaner future and ship their goods using only the best available technologies,” Long Beach City Councilmember Cindy Allen said in a statement.

But getting to net-zero shipping is a monumental task that will require significant technological advancement and investments in alternative fuels — in addition to ambitious pronouncements from policymakers. Although some zero-emissions solutions already exist, experts say they need to be refined, scaled up, and supported by government policies to facilitate industry-wide decarbonization. 

According to Jing Sun, a marine engineering professor at the University of Michigan, more work is needed to create viable clean fueling systems before they can be rolled out en masse. “It’s not just a technology deployment issue,” she said.

At any given time, more than 50,000 ships are zipping around the world’s oceans, carrying about 90 percent of all globally traded goods from port to port. Virtually all of these ships run on fossil fuels — either sludge-like heavy fuel oils, diesel, or liquefied natural gas, all of which release planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions when burned. Altogether, the global shipping industry is responsible for nearly 3 percent of all human-caused climate pollution, and international regulators say emissions could continue rising without urgent action.

But how do you propel a massive cargo ship — which can weigh hundreds of millions of pounds when fully loaded — across the ocean without using fossil fuels? Zero-emission technologies that are powering a rapid energy transition in other sectors fall short when it comes to global shipping. Batteries, for example, are currently much too heavy to push cargo ships across the oceans. Onboard solar panels take up too much space, and nuclear power creates safety and environmental concerns. Many companies have plans to launch or have already launched ships powered by biofuels — fuels produced from plant crops, algae, or animal fats — but experts expect them to play a limited role in the future of decarbonized shipping due to scalability constraints and high demand from other sectors. The nonprofit Pacific Environment has criticized biofuel as a “dead end” fuel that is only in some instances carbon neutral. 

Only two kinds of alternative fuels are widely considered to be viable candidates for decarbonized shipping: green hydrogen and green ammonia. Both can be produced with clean electricity and burned in an internal combustion engine or a fuel cell — a versatile technology that converts chemical energy into electricity — where they produce no greenhouse gas emissions.

However, these fuels aren’t quite ready for prime time, in part because their supply is so limited. Green hydrogen, produced by splitting a water molecule using renewable energy, is still too expensive to be made in the kinds of quantities that could power a global shipping fleet. The supply chain for ammonia — which is produced by combining hydrogen with nitrogen that’s extracted from the air — is more established, since ammonia is widely used as an agricultural fertilizer. But to make ammonia green, the hydrogen input has to be green hydrogen. This, along with costly storage requirements, makes green ammonia about as expensive as green hydrogen.

“There are definitely going to be some challenges along the road” to scaling green hydrogen and ammonia up, said Dan Hubbell, shipping emissions campaign manager for the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy. 

Ships also need to be configured differently to run on greener fuels. Although some pilot projects have developed small hydrogen-powered vessels, it’s another question to expand hydrogen and ammonia compatibility to all ships globally. According to Sun, at the University of Michigan, researchers are still grappling with many design and safety questions, like how best to fit alternative fuels — which are less energy-dense than oil and gas — onto a ship, or how to safely contain ammonia, which can release hazardous nitrogen oxide or unspent fuel when combusted. 

“We need to, as a research community, take a holistic approach and explore the whole space. I don’t think that has happened,” Sun said, calling for more government investment to make that exploration possible. She and other experts also want the International Maritime Organization, or IMO — a unique United Nations agency that can set legally binding regulations — to unify the industry behind a stronger decarbonization goal. The IMO’s current target is nonbinding: to achieve only a 50 percent reduction in emissions by 2050, relative to a 2008 baseline. Hubbell called the goal “abysmal.” 

Still, the IMO isn’t the only government body capable of pushing the shipping industry. Madeline Rose, climate campaign director for Pacific Environment, noted that regulators like the California Air Resources Board or the federal Environmental Protection Agency could mandate emissions standards for all ships entering California ports, or all U.S.-owned ships, respectively. These policies could potentially spread outside the U.S., as California’s 2007 standard for sulfur emissions eventually did when the IMO adopted a similar — albeit weaker — standard in 2020. They can also help drive down prices for green technologies, allowing them to permeate throughout the shipping industry, by artificially increasing demand.

And even smaller jurisdictions like the Long Beach City Council can also make waves, helping to foster the conditions necessary for decarbonization. An ambitious commitment is one way to do that. “Having a port take a clear stance now … is a key enabler of the technology demonstration and wider regulation that is necessary to drive the switch away from fossil fuels,” said Tristan Smith, a lecturer at University College London’s Energy Institute. Other actions ports can take include prohibiting polluting ships from using their docks, giving docking preference to zero-emissions ships, or installing “shore power,” which allows ships to plug into electricity while docked so they don’t have to keep burning fuel. Both LA and Long Beach already provide shore power, and groups like Pacific Environment are pushing for them to adopt the other policies as well.

Although Smith called Long Beach’s 2030 target “entirely appropriate,” Sun was more cautious. She said that many shorter routes or routes along so-called “green corridors” with supportive infrastructure for alternative fuels could feasibly go net-zero by the end of the decade, but that decarbonizing long-haul voyages across the oceans by then might be overambitious. 

“The Long Beach initiative is great,” she said, because it puts greater pressure on lawmakers and industry to get to net-zero. But she called for more research and development to ensure that alternative fuels and the engines that run them are safe, effective, and reliable. “And then once we get that, then how do we scale them?”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline California lawmakers are ready to decarbonize the shipping industry. The technology isn’t there yet. on Jul 11, 2022.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Joseph Winters.

Human rights campaigners celebrated late Tuesday after a European court ruling led to the cancellation of a flight to deport asylum-seekers from the United Kingdom to Rwanda as part of a controversial deal the governments unveiled in April.

"We will continue the fight tomorrow and against EVERY racist deportation."

"We fought back against the government's racist Rwanda plan and WON," tweeted the London-based Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI). "Today's victory shows that, when we come together, we CAN beat this government's toxic anti-migrant agenda."

While also welcoming the news that "nobody will fly to Rwanda," the U.K. group Freedom from Torture said on social media that "we know the [government] won't be giving up. So let's give this everything we've got, starting now. Together we can win."

Vowing to keep up the fight, JCWI similarly warned that "this is just the beginning" and predicted that U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson "will blame anyone but himself for this abhorrent failure of a plan: He will scapegoat refugees and migrants. He will try to scrap the Human Rights Act."

Referring to the money that the United Kingdom gives Rwanda under the deal, JCWI also said that "it shouldn't take a European court to tell the U.K. government a simple fact: It's morally repugnant to trade human beings for cash."

According to BBC News, "up to seven people had been expected to be removed to the east African country," but a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of a 54-year-old Iraqi asylum-seeker "led the remaining men to appeal—some to judges in London."

The broader policy is set to be reviewed in British court next month. In its decision Tuesday, the ECHR said that "the applicant should not be removed until the expiry of a period of three weeks following the delivery of the final domestic decision in the ongoing judicial review proceedings."

Plans for the £500,000 ($600,585) chartered deportation flight to depart a military airport in Wiltshire late Tuesday sparked protests against the policy, blasted by human rights experts around the world but championed by top Tories in the United Kingdom, including Johnson and Home Secretary Priti Patel, along with Rwandan leadership.

"Rwandan authorities have said the agreement would initially last for five years, with the British government paying £120 million ($158 million) upfront to pay for housing and integrating the asylum-seekers," The Associated Press noted. "Britain is expected to pay more as Rwanda accepts more migrants, although the exact number of people the U.K. is expected to send isn't known."

Patel on Tuesday described the U.K.-Rwandan deal as "world-leading" and said she was "disappointed" by the ECHR's decision but "we will not be deterred." She added that "many of those removed from this flight will be placed on the next," preparation for which "begins now."

The New York Times reported that after the flight was canceled, Yolande Makolo, a spokesperson for the Rwandan government, said that "Rwanda remains fully committed to making this partnership work," and "stands ready to receive the migrants when they do arrive and offer them safety and opportunity in our country."

Meanwhile, critics of the deal—from activists across the United Kingdom to members of Parliament—remain determined to defeat it.

"We're pleased the courts have ruled to stop this flight," said Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, according to The Guardian. "It's time for the government to stop this inhumane policy, which is the basest of gesture politics, and start to engage seriously with sorting out the asylum system so those who come to our country seeking refuge are treated fairly and according to the law."

Following protests outside Patel's office on Monday, demonstrators with Stop Deportations laid down in the road outside a detention center in an effort to block the transfer of asylum-seekers to the flight—an action that led to some arrests, according to the group.

"We have won today," Stop Deportations said after the flight was grounded, "but we will continue the fight tomorrow and against EVERY racist deportation."

Some leftists British politicians spoke out in support of the protests and against the policy on Tuesday.

MP Jeremy Corbyn, a former Labour Party leader, called the ECHR's intervention "a very welcome decision" and "a devastating blow to the government's inhumane plans to deport refugees to Rwanda." He also thanked "the many brilliant campaigners who have fought tirelessly for the rights of refugees."

Labour MP Paula Barker also celebrated the "superb news," adding: "Well done those involved. The fight against this policy is not over yet, but you can all be proud of what you have achieved tonight."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

Footage circulating on social media Tuesday showed a home in Gardiner, Montana crashing into the flooded Yellowstone River after rushing water undermined the foundation and broke the house's stilts, offering what climate campaigners warn is a picture of the kind of catastrophe likely to become more common as the climate crisis worsens.

"A hot world means more rain," said author and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben in response to the video.

The building—reportedly a multi-family house where five local families and individuals lived—was swept into the rushing river after heavy rains and the region's fast-melting snowpack triggered historic flooding.

While an unknown number of tourists visiting Yellowstone National Park were evacuated, journalist Kathleen McLaughlin tweeted, "the impact of catastrophic flooding in the Yellowstone region will fall hardest on working-class people" who live there year-round.

Power outages were reported on Monday across Yellowstone National Park, which covers 2.2 million acres in parts of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, while officials evacuated visitors and closed entrances to the park indefinitely, according to NBC News.

"This is flooding that we've just never seen in our lifetimes before."

"We will not know timing of the park's reopening until flood waters subside and we're able to assess the damage throughout the park," park superintendent Cam Sholly told CBS News.

Road access to Gardiner, home to about 900 residents, was cut off due to the flooding as mudslides and rockslides were reported in the area.

"This is flooding that we've just never seen in our lifetimes before," Cory Mottice, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service based in Billings, Montana, told NBC.

The river crested at 13.88 feet on Monday. The previous record, 11.5 feet, was set in 1918.

NBC reported that "numerous homes and other structures were destroyed" in addition to the home that collapsed into the river, but said there have been no reports of injuries thus far.

Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, said the dramatic footage of the house should push policymakers to "speed up climate action this decade, this year, this month, this week, today, right now."

"Nowhere on Earth is immune to climate change," said Dasgupta.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Julia Conley.

Donald Trump's incessant and frequently outlandish lies about the 2020 election were in the spotlight Monday as a special House committee laid out its case that the former president's falsehoods about widespread voter fraud were pivotal in catalyzing the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Monday's hearing, the second in a series of six, featured videotaped testimony from Trump administration insiders—including former Attorney General William Barr—and campaign officials who told House investigators that they informed their boss his claims about the 2020 election were unfounded, but he nevertheless made them on the night of the November contest and in subsequent weeks, ginning up his right-wing base and raking in massive sums in donations from supporters.

"He and his allies methodically and knowingly spread untruths about the election, with the goal of overturning it."

"Today's hearing showed clearly that Trump lied. And he knew he lied," Lisa Gilbert, executive vice president of Public Citizen, said in a statement following the hearing. "He and his allies methodically and knowingly spread untruths about the election, with the goal of overturning it. The words of Trump's former campaign manager, as well as testimony from other prominent GOP representatives today, cannot be denied."

While Bill Stepien—who directed Trump's 2020 presidential campaign—backed out of his planned in-person testimony at the last minute Monday because his wife went into labor, lawmakers played a recorded deposition clip in which Stepien says he cautioned Trump against declaring victory prematurely on election night.

"It was far too early to make any calls like that. Ballots were still being counted, ballots were still going to be counted for days," Stepien told congressional investigators, noting that Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani was pushing for an election-night victory declaration.

"It was far too early to be making any proclamations like that," added Stepien, who said he told Trump that early returns would likely be more favorable to him than later ones—the so-called "red mirage" phenomenon.

Barr, who helped boost the former president's voter fraud lies as attorney general, similarly testified that "everyone understood for weeks" that in-person vote counts would potentially favor Trump early on and later ballots would favor Biden—particularly given the surge in mail-in voting amid the coronavirus pandemic.

But that didn't dissuade Trump from baselessly citing the later-counted Democratic votes as evidence of a nefarious plot to steal the election.

"He's become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff," Barr told the panel. "There was never an indication of interest in what the actual facts were."

Christina Harvey, executive director of Stand Up America, said in a statement that the House January 6 committee's second high-profile public hearing made clear that "President Trump knew he lost the 2020 election—his own attorney general, lawyers, and campaign manager testified that they told him so."

"Today, we even heard testimony from an electoral expert who was a Fox News political editor on election night 2020 that 'Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.' was the clear winner of the 2020 presidential election," said Harvey, pointing to Chris Stirewalt, part of the Fox team that drew the ire of Trump supporters by calling Arizona for Biden on election night.

Stirewalt, whom Fox fired just months after the presidential election, said during his testimony that "you're better off to play the Powerball than to have that come in," referring to the Trump team's floundering multistate legal effort to overturn the election.

Harvey noted Monday that "instead of accepting his loss, Trump planned, promoted, and paid for a criminal conspiracy to overturn the will of American voters."

"He peddled bogus claims of election fraud, swindled his supporters out of millions of dollars, and encouraged them to break the law in an effort to block the peaceful transition of power," she added. "It's clear we cannot allow Trump or his allies to evade accountability for the dangerous lies and actions that continue to put our democracy in peril."

Former Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt, a Republican who helped investigate the Trump team's claims of voter fraud in Pennsylvania, told the House panel during in-person testimony Monday that local officials took seriously every claim of wrongdoing "no matter how fantastical," including Giuliani's baseless assertion that more than 8,000 "dead people" voted by mail in the battleground state.

"Not only was there not evidence of 8,000 dead voters voting in Pennsylvania," said Schmidt, "there wasn't evidence of eight."

Khalif Ali, executive director of Common Cause Pennsylvania, applauded Schmidt for his testimony "and for his continued willingness to speak the truth in the face of lies and harrowing threats" from Trump supporters.

"The Big Lie was just that—a lie," said Ali. "We look forward to the planners and perpetrators of the attack on the Capitol on January 6 being held responsible. We also look forward to accountability for the people who have threatened and harassed election workers and officials."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

On June 3, the junta announced that it would proceed with the planned executions of former Member of Parliament Phyo Zeya Thaw and Ko Jimmy, a longtime democracy activist and former leader of the 88 Generation Students Group. Anti-regime opponents Aung Thura Zaw and Hla Myo Aung are also facing the death penalty.

Myanmar’s military, which seized control from the democratically elected government in a February 2021 coup, has cracked down on anti-regime activists, sentencing more than 100 to death. The executions of Phyo Zeya Thaw and Ko Jimmy, whose real name is Kyaw Min Yu, would be the country’s first judicial executions since 1990.

Authorities had not received execution orders from the junta for Phyo Zeya Thaw and Ko Jimmy, who are being held in Yangon’s Insein Prison, said Prisons Department spokesman Khin Shwe.

“We haven’t receive anything from the superiors,” he said. “We also don’t know about the news that they will be hanged this evening and that there had been religious rites in prison for the inmates.”

All four inmates are in good health and have been transferred to death row where they are wearing orange prison suits given to those facing execution, he said.

Junta spokesman, Maj. Gen. Zaw Min Tun, told RFA on Tuesday that all four men would be executed under the regular procedures of the Prisons Department.

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, current chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), sent a written appeal on Friday to Sen. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, head of the State Administration Council (SAC), the formal name of the junta regime, to “reconsider the sentences and refrain from carrying out the death sentences.”

“The death sentences and reported planned execution of a number of anti-SAC individuals have attracted great concern among ASEAN member states, as well as ASEAN external partners,” he wrote.

If carried out, the executions “would trigger a very strong and widespread negative reaction from the international community” and hurt efforts to find a peaceful solution to the crisis in Myanmar, Hun Sen wrote.

A former member of the hip-hop band Acid, Phyo Zeya Thaw served as a lawmaker from the National League for Democracy from 2012 to 2020. Following the coup and the subsequent crackdown on peaceful anti-regime protesters, he went into hiding but was arrested in November 2021.

Phyo Zeya Thaw, whose real name is Maung Kyaw, and Ko Jimmy, who was arrested in October 2021, were both sentenced to death by a military tribunal this January for treason and terrorism.
Activist Nilar Thein, who is the wife of Ko Jimmy, said the junta will have to take responsibility for giving her husband the death penalty.

Translated by Ye Kaung Myint Maung for RFA Burmese. Written in English by Roseanne Gerin.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Burmese.

The post For Happy the Elephant, Personhood Is Yet Another Cage appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Lee Hall.

The National Hurricane Center predicts that the remnants of the storm will cross into the Gulf of Mexico or Caribbean, and could spawn the first named storm of the Atlantic season, which kicks off June 1. This comes a week after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, issued its annual hurricane season outlook, forecasting “above-average” hurricane activity in the Atlantic for the seventh year in a row.

Agatha rapidly intensified into a Category 2 hurricane off the coast of Mexico on Sunday and made landfall in the state of Oaxaca the next day. The torrential rains caused mudslides, blocking two highways in Oaxaca, and some towns lost power and telephone lines. At least three people were killed.

The storm weakened as it traveled inland and over mountains, but could gain new life when it reaches the Atlantic. On Tuesday afternoon, forecasters with the National Hurricane Center predicted that what’s left of Agatha will collide with an area of low pressure currently spinning over southeastern Mexico, saying there’s a 70 percent chance that it could turn into a new tropical depression or storm named Alex once it crosses into the Gulf of Mexico or the Caribbean Sea.

If Agatha does morph into Alex, it will kick off an Atlantic hurricane season that’s expected to be a busy one. NOAA predicts there will likely be 14 to 21 named storms this year, with six to 10 becoming hurricanes with winds of at least 74 miles per hour — including three to six major hurricanes with winds of at least 111 miles per hour. Forecasters attribute the increase in expected hurricane activity to several factors, including the ongoing La Niña, which affects oceanic and atmospheric circulation globally, a strong west African monsoon, which creates wind patterns that can spin up storms across the Atlantic, and warmer than average sea surface temperatures, which can fuel the rapid intensification of storms.

Rising sea surface temperatures are just one way that climate change is influencing hurricanes, according to NOAA. Warmer temperatures mean the atmosphere can hold more moisture, allowing hurricanes to dump more rain. Higher sea levels mean storm surges are inundating more of the coast. A recent study published in the journal Weather and Climate Dynamics found that climate change has “contributed to a decisive increase in Atlantic Ocean hurricane activity” since the 1980s and doubled the chances for extreme seasons like 2020 — when 31 named storms made it the busiest on record.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A Pacific hurricane may kick off yet another hectic Atlantic hurricane season on Jun 1, 2022.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Julia Kane.

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Adam Ramsay.

But despite this global surge in popularity, heat pumps in the U.S. are belaboring under a misconception that has plagued them for decades: That if the temperature falls to below 30 or even 40 degrees Fahrenheit, their technology simply doesn’t work. “Do heat pumps work in cold weather” is even a trending question on Google. 

It’s a narrative that Andy Meyer, a senior program manager for the independent state agency Efficiency Maine, has spent the past decade debunking for residents in one of the U.S.’s coldest states.  

“There were two types of people in Maine in 2012,” he said. “Those who didn’t know what heat pumps were — and those who knew they didn’t work in the cold.” But while that concern may have been true years ago, he said, today “it’s not at all true for high-performance heat pumps.” 

Air-source heat pumps — there are also geothermal heat pumps and water-source heat pumps — are poorly named and poorly understood. (According to one small 2020 study from the heating tech company Sealed, about 47 percent of homeowners in the U.S. Northeast had never even heard of heat pumps.) They are essentially reversible air conditioners: Like AC units, they can take heat from inside a home and pump it out to provide a cooling effect. But unlike air conditioners, they can also run backwards — drawing heat from outdoors and bringing it inside to warm a home. 

That process of moving heat rather than creating it explains why heat pumps are mind-blowingly efficient. A gas furnace — which burns natural gas to create heat — can only reach around 95 percent efficiency. A heat pump can easily reach 300 or 400 percent efficiency; that is, it can make around 3 to 4 times as much energy as it consumes. 

Years ago, the technology really only worked in mild climates. The early generation of heat pumps were installed mostly in southern states that needed air conditioning and just a little bit of extra warmth in the winter. “They really gained traction in areas where it wasn’t cold,” said Ben Schoenbauer, a senior research engineer at the Center for Energy and Environment, or CEE, in Minnesota. 

But over the past decade or so, heating companies began developing a new generation of heat pumps with “inverter-driven variable-speed compressors” — a mouthful of a term that essentially gives the heat pump the ability to more quickly transport heat from frigid outdoor air. 

Soon, high-performance heat pumps were being produced that could warm a home even when outdoor temperatures were down to -31 degrees Fahrenheit. (Even in extreme sub-zero temperatures, there is still some amount of heat in outdoor air.) A heat pump’s efficiency does go down as it gets colder, but even in subzero temperatures high-end units can be over 100 percent efficient. And in recent years, some of the country’s coldest states have gone all-in on the technology. According to a study in Environmental Research Letters, heat pumps could reduce CO2 emissions in 70 percent of homes across the country; homes heated by inefficient electric heaters or fuel oil could particularly benefit. Utilities and states have started offering rebates for consumers to install heat pumps, even in colder states like New York, Massachusetts, or Maine. Many environmental groups and state agencies are working hard to convince residents that top-of-the-line heat pumps can function well in cold climates. 

Efficiency Maine has been part of that trend. Early on, Meyer said, residents were deeply skeptical that a simple electric device could keep them warm in the state’s frigid conditions. But Efficiency Maine recruited installers, ran social media and radio ads, and released studies and reports showing that heat pumps could work. “It started in Northern Maine — a very close, tightly knit community,” Meyer said. Once a few people installed heat pumps, they began telling their friends, who told their friends, and so on. So far, Meyer says, Efficiency Maine has offered rebates for 100,000 heat pumps — in a state where there are less than 600,000 occupied housing units. Maine now has a higher rate of heat pump installations per capita than most European countries. 

Other organizations are doing similar work. The Center for Energy and Environment in Minnesota has formed a collaborative with utilities to help boost heat pump adoption in the state; they also maintain a list of contractors who have been vetted to install the systems. The Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, a Massachusetts-based nonprofit, has resources for installers and consumers, including a list of air-source heat pumps that operate well under the climate conditions of Northeast states. Some heat pumps are even being installed in Alaska, where average winter temperatures hover around a high of 23 degrees Fahrenheit. 

One of the benefits of installing heat pumps is cost-savings. In Maine, many homes are heated with fuel oil or propane. At current prices, Meyer says, running a heat pump costs half as much as oil and one-third as much as propane. According to Efficiency Maine’s analysis, that can save homeowners up to thousands of dollars in annual energy costs. A 2017 study by CEE similarly found that installing heat pumps in Minnesota could save residents between $349 and $764 per year, compared to heating with a standard electric or propane furnace. 

There are some caveats. Lacey Tan, a manager for the carbon-free buildings program at the energy think tank RMI, says there is still a price premium for heat pumps: Some installers aren’t yet comfortable with how they work and try to reduce their risk by increasing up-front costs. In cold climates, some homes may want to have a back-up heating system for extremely frigid days or in the event of a power outage. (In Maine, Meyer says many homeowners use wood stoves as back-up for their heat pumps.) 

But many experts believe more and more cold-weather heat pumps will be sold as homeowners learn about the new advances in the technology. Meyer says that Mainers who install heat pumps naturally begin to share their experience with friends and family. “We have over 100,000 salespeople who have already gotten heat pumps,” he said jokingly. “Not bad for a state where they ‘don’t work in the cold.’”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Heat pumps do work in the cold — Americans just don’t know it yet on May 9, 2022.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Shannon Osaka.

Now, his new book “You Have Not Yet Been Defeated,” a collection of Abdelfattah’s writings that includes essays, tweets, and those smuggled letters, has been translated from Arabic and published, offering English readers their first opportunity to read the thoughts and reporting of the journalist, who has been in custody since 2014.

Last month, Sanaa Seif, Abdelfattah’s sister, visited the U.S. to promote the book and advocate for her brother’s release. Seif sat down for an interview at CPJ’s headquarters in New York to discuss Abdelfattah’s book, hunger strike, and the injustices he and his family have been going through since his first arrest in 2011.

CPJ emailed the Egyptian Ministry of Interior, which oversees the police and prison system in Egypt, for comment, but did not receive any response. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Can you tell us about Alaa’s new book, “You Have Not Yet Been Defeated”? What significance does it have to English readers?

Alaa used to write for local independent news website Mada Masrand other newspapers when that was possible, and he continued writing while in prison. Recently, some family friends decided to collect his writings, including those smuggled from prison, translate them to English, and put them all in a book for the English reader.

The title of the book is “You Have Not Yet Been Defeated,” and “You” refers to the reader. The Egyptian uprising of 2011 was clearly defeated, and the way Alaa saw it, is that there is value in facing our defeat and learning from it, so a lot of his writings are about that. We think that our defeat could be an inspiration to others, especially to those who have not yet been defeated.

When I last visited Alaa in prison, he told me that he was very happy about this book getting published. The reason for him being in prison is to imprison his voice, so since the book is out, his voice is out too.

To what extent are you and your family in touch with Alaa?

Prison visits are allowed only once a month for 20 minutes, and only one person is allowed per visit through a telephone speaker and a glass wall, so we don’t hug Alaa. We don’t get much time with him, but it is always quality time with Alaa.

However, during the [COVID-19] pandemic, the only way we could get news of Alaa was through letters, and at some point, they [the authorities] decided to ban the letters too. One time, my mother, my sister, and I decided to stage a sit-in in front of the prison gate, demanding we get a letter from Alaa. We didn’t know whether he was fine or not, and we have been hearing very worrying news about him.

The next day, some civilian women with bricks and wooden sticks approached us while we waited and started beating us up and stole our stuff. I was badly injured, and all this happened while prison guards, whose job is to secure the prison, watched. Later, I found out that these women were sent by the police, and they had received orders to particularly humiliate me.

The next day, we went to the public prosecutors’ office to file an official complaint. There, they told me that they need to inspect my injuries, so I went with them while my family waited, only to find myself getting arrested. They took me directly to an emergency hearing where I was charged with spreading false news about the lack of COVID-19 precautions in prison and insulting public officials on duty, referring to the prison guards who were watching me getting beaten up. I was also charged with committing two terrorist crimes.

I was sentenced to one and a half years in prison after being convicted of spreading false news and insulting a public official. The terrorism charges did not go to court, and I am still facing them. They also made sure to tell me that they can use these terrorism charges against me to put me back in prison at any time.

Why do you continue your online advocacy for Alaa when it’s dangerous for you?

I was imprisoned three times, and there are different details for each time, but it all comes down to the fact that I won’t shut up about the injustices that my brother is facing. Each and every time I am released, I am always told that I can live my life peacefully only if I stop writing or talking about Alaa.

I don’t really have a choice but to continue talking about him. I would consider holding back if the other party was in any way reasonable, like if I had made a compromise — my brother would be out. But according to all the unofficial conversations they [the authorities] have had with me, it didn’t seem that any compromise would be enough to get Alaa out. It is clear they want to keep him in prison.

How would you describe Alaa’s prison conditions?  And can you tell us about his latest hunger strike?

From my personal experience, prison conditions have been deteriorating over the years. But for Alaa especially, the past three years were much worse than anything we have ever experienced.

He spent five years in prison before being out on probation, where he had to spend 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. in jail every day. But Alaa is always able to write if he has access to a pen and paper. For example, during the six months he was on probation, if he had an idea in his mind that he wanted to write about, he would collect all the material and study it before 6 p.m. and then write about it while in custody. Even then, state security officers repeatedly raided his jail cell inside the police station, blindfolded him, and threatened that he would go back to prison.

When Alaa was re-arrested after sharing the tweet that accuses officer Ahmed Fekry of killing a political prisoner in Tora maximum security prison, they placed Alaa in the same prison and under the authority of the same police officer [Fekry].

On his first day back in prison, they [the officers] did this thing called a “welcome party,” where they basically humiliated and tortured him. Ahmed Fekry was present. After that, they deprived him of his basic rights. Alaa is not allowed sunlight, fresh air, books, or even a paper or a pen, and when they allow him to send us a letter, they give him a pen and a paper and ask him to write to us on the spot, only to monitor what he writes.

Back in October 2021, Alaa was so fed up with being deprived of his rights and expressed suicidal thoughts, which is unlike him. But instead of giving up to that mental state, he decided to fight back and resist. Alaa started a hunger strike on April 2 to express how fed up he is with this nonsense.

[Editors’ note: CPJ cannot independently confirm any allegations of torture, but they are in line with Egyptian prisoners’ accounts. Abdelfattah described the “welcome party” in a 2019 article in Mada Masr. The Egyptian Ministry of Interior, which oversees the police and prison system in Egypt, did not return CPJ’s email request for comment on the allegations against Ahmed Fekry and the Tora prison officials.]

How has being in and out of prison for over a decade affected Alaa’s family?

When Alaa was released on probation, it was energizing for us, especially for his son, who’s about 12 years old today and has not seen his father much. But during his probation period, they managed to create a very strong and intimate relationship. During Alaa’s first five-year sentence, his boy was young, and for him, Alaa did not exist. So now, it is much harder on his son, who now knows who his father is and is being deprived of him.

For all of us, that time was very refreshing, especially the brief six hours that Alaa would split between all of us during the day before returning to the police station. I remember being surprised by how he can fit so well and so fast in our lives after being away for so long. I still remember the first moment he entered the house after his release. He had never seen my dog before, and they greeted each other so well as if they have known each other for a long time. It [his home] is just where he belongs!

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

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Laura Basu.

Police and emergency responders gather at the site of a mass shooting in a subway station in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, on April 12, 2022.

Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The subway attack adheres to a recognizable script: A tragedy is metabolized into an excuse to expand the machinery of the security state.

Related

▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Nick Pinto.

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Igor Ilyash.

If Republicans take back one or more houses of Congress this fall as they are favored to do, Democrats have a narrow window of time before then to pass a climate plan. Luckily, such a plan already exists. It comprises roughly $320 billion worth of clean energy tax credits, $105 billion in resilience investments, $110 billion in tax credits for green technology and manufacturing, and $20 billion to buy clean energy. The House of Representatives voted to pass the plan late last year and sent it on to the Senate, where all 50 Democratic senators are amenable to it. Sixty percent of Americans support the climate provisions, a reflection of the public’s massive appetite for federal climate action. 

So what’s the holdup? The problem is that all of that climate spending is tied up in a package called the Build Back Better Act, which also advances other progressive priorities, such as prescription drug pricing reform, expanded child tax credits, and making health insurance more affordable, that have proven to be contentious among Democratic senators. Passing climate policy alone would require dismantling the legislation and reintroducing elements of it as a new, climate-focused bill. Political experts say that lawmakers have been hesitant to focus exclusively on climate for a number of reasons, but that now might be the perfect moment for Democrats to restructure their original climate plan and bill it as an effort to both combat inflation and invest in domestic energy security. 

There’s reason to believe the climate portions of the Build Back Better Act would pass if they were rejiggered into their own piece of legislation. “The climate thing is one that we probably could come to an agreement much easier than anything else,” Joe Manchin, the centrist senator from West Virginia who has thwarted many of the progressive aspects of Biden’s agenda thus far, including Build Back Better, told reporters in January. Manchin has a track record of being a fickle negotiator, but, for the moment, there’s little downside to taking his comments at face value.

“It seems clear that there are 50 senators who are in favor of taking action on a climate investment package,” Jared Leopold, cofounder of the climate policy think tank Evergreen Action, told Grist. “It would be malpractice for the Senate not to get something done on that right now.” 

But little progress has been made on a new, climate-focused piece of legislation. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and President Biden, who have both called climate change the number one threat to our planet, have been curiously silent on the status of the Build Back Better Act. Last week, 89 Democratic lawmakers sent Biden an open letter urging him to restart bicameral negotiations around the climate provisions in Build Back Better. The Biden administration hasn’t publicly said whether it is planning to encourage a fresh round of climate talks. 

“The Senate has proven themselves incapable of treating climate with the seriousness it deserves,” Sean Casten, a Democratic representative from Illinois who led the effort, told Grist. (Casten used to be a writer for this magazine.) 

A number of factors could be contributing to Congressional inertia on climate. Some senators may be loath to elevate climate action above the other priorities in Build Back Better. Going ahead with a climate-focused package means leaving a bunch of other important policy items on the table. “I think there are a lot of Democrats whose priority is other parts of the Build Back Better agenda,” Paul Blesdoe, a former Clinton administration climate official who is now a strategic adviser for the Progressive Policy Institute, told Grist. “It’s not easy to give those up.” 

Senate logistics are also slowing things down. Democrats are striving to pass the meat of Biden’s presidential agenda via the budget reconciliation process, wherein the majority party can pass legislative priorities that pertain to the congressional budget with a simple majority instead of the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster. Not a single Republican has signed on to the Build Back Better Act, forcing Democrats to use the reconciliation process to get Biden’s agenda done. It took them months to figure out how to craft the package in a way that fit budget reconciliation rules, which are strict. Creating a stand-alone clean energy bill out of the ruins of Build Back Better, complete with a tax structure to pay for the clean energy tax credits Democrats want, is hard to do. “The Senate operates at the speed of a sloth,” Danielle Deiseroth, lead climate strategist for the progressive think tank Data for Progress, told Grist. “I think it’s getting bogged down by a lot of the procedural stuff.”

Some political insiders wonder how big a priority climate change really is for Democratic leadership, particularly now, as Russian soldiers push deeper into Ukraine, inflation soars, and gas prices go up. As has happened with climate legislation countless times in the past, other, seemingly more pressing issues may have shunted the issue onto the sidelines. A couple of weeks ago, Manchin, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said the war in Ukraine emphasizes the need to pursue an “all of the above” domestic energy policy, including boosting oil and gas production on public lands. 

“The world has been completely flipped upside down since December when there were the last really live talks about the full social and climate spending agenda,” Deiseroth said. But she’s hopeful that climate action will take center stage again soon. “I would predict that climate is going to be like Tom Brady,” Deiseroth said. “He’s just gonna come back from retirement better than ever.” 

There’s some evidence to support Deiseroth’s prediction. On Wednesday, E&E News reported that momentum is building around restarting Build Back Better talks and that negotiations could begin in earnest soon with the goal of reaching a deal in April or May. A source familiar with the matter confirmed that timeline to Grist. Four people who spoke to E&E News said lawmakers are passing around the beginnings of draft text legislation. But it’s not clear whether the $320 billion in clean energy tax credits, or any other part of the original Build Back Better Act, will make it into whatever legislation lawmakers cook up. If a bill is introduced later this spring, there’s no saying what it will look like or how aggressively it will support a transition to clean energy. 

Blesdoe, the former Clinton advisor, thinks the war in Ukraine has presented senators with a golden opportunity to promote a bill that simultaneously tackles energy insecurity, inflation, and climate change by incentivizing a shift to renewables. “The package has got to be marketed around reducing long-term energy costs and increasing energy security,” he said. 

In the near term, Blesdoe said that the Biden administration may have to make some not-so-climate-friendly concessions to appeal to centrist lawmakers, like using executive action to open up more reserves of oil and gas or exporting more natural gas to Europe to make up for Russian shortfalls. “There is an element here of trying to reduce near-term prices and that may require some short term oil and gas supply increases,” he said. “If that’s the price to pay for a huge down payment in long-term improvements in energy security, reducing costs, and cutting emissions, that’s fine. That may be the deal that Manchin and the Biden administration could coalesce around.” 

Experts say that the absolute worst-case scenario for Democrats would be to do nothing on climate change at all. “Looking ahead to November, they’re going to have to deliver something,” Deiseroth said. “When climate is one of the top three issues that Democratic voters care about, you gotta deliver.” 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why the Senate hasn’t made a climate deal yet on Mar 25, 2022.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Zoya Teirstein.

Papua New Guinean police have made a startling revelation that firearms for the National Elections security operations in June have yet to be purchased.

Deputy Police Commissioner Anton Billie says the firearms might not be procured and received by the time the election writs are issued on April 28 when nominations and campaigns start in earnest.

“We haven’t purchased anything yet. I’ve been told that they are doing it (police procurement team) but they need time,” Billie said yesterday.

• READ MORE: PNG election polling date change poses a security threat, says economist

He said the normal process for procurement of ammunition and guns could take about six to eight months to organise because important procurement protocols that needed to be followed.

Billie believes, however, police will manage with the currently available stock until the new procurement arrives.

A senior employee of the Police Department, who requested anonymity, said there were strict procurement protocols in place. However, due to the urgency the police procurement team had come up with measures to bypass some of these procedures.

The source said this situation would not have come about had the funds for the purchase of the firearms been released in November or December last year.

Funding needed last year
“We were supposed to get the funding last year but because we got it this year in February, the funding delayed everything,” he said.

“It normally takes a long time to procure.

“To get the procurement for those major expenditures, like uniforms and guns and ammunitions, we don’t have the time to do that procurement.”

The issue is further complicated because the procurement committee has not approved the police procurement orders.

Items yet to be purchased include guns, ammunitions, and uniforms.

The three-week election is due to begin a week early on June 18.

Claudia Tally is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

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

Vanuatu’s Ministry of Health (MOH) has yet to inform the public on when, where and how the first person outside quarantine contracted covid-19 in the country’s first case of community transmission.

Acting Director of Public Health Jenny Stephen, said during a media conference that she could not give an update on this issue as this was yet to be determined.

However, she confirmed that the case is in quarantine and has mild symptoms only or asymptomatic, which was not severe.

• READ MORE: Vanuatu confirms community transmission of covid-19

As of Monday, 48 of the 120 close contacts of the first confirmed case had been sent to quarantine. Others were being traced and would also be isolated.

Acting Director Stephen said the quarantine expenses for the close contacts would be covered by the ministry through the emergency funds.

The Minister of Health, Bruno Leingkone, said the government would be increasing the number of quarantine facilities to accommodate close contacts and positive case.

Currently, some people are told to self-isolate at home due to insufficient space in quarantine, said Acting Director Stephen.

“They are advised to stay isolated until it is safe, and they should be following covid-19 protocols while isolating,” she said.

RNZ Pacific reports that Vanuatu health authorities have confirmed their first case of community transmission of covid-19, saying there are a total of 58 covid cases in the country and 10 of them are in the community.

Minister Leingkon said the community cases were discovered over the weekend after the Member of Parliament for Port Vila constituency, Anthony Yauko, had tested positive.

Anita Roberts is a Vanuatu Daily Post journalist. Republished with permission.

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

The post Yet More on Inflation appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Dean Baker.

"This travesty is not an independent event—it is part of a concerted effort by right-wing extremists."

Introduced by Republican Washoe County Commissioner Jeanne Herman, the proposal is set for consideration and a possible final vote at the county board's next meeting on Tuesday, February 22.

Nevada State Democratic Party Chair Judith Whitmer said the stakes of the local board meeting are huge, arguing in a statement late Thursday that the county GOP's proposal "represents the single most vicious voter suppression attempt in recent history, surpassing even the tactics being used against voters in Texas and Georgia."

"It is with absolute outrage that we have discovered a shocking effort to assault the electoral process of Washoe County," said Whitmer. "We recognize that this travesty is not an independent event—it is part of a concerted effort by right-wing extremists to delegitimize and ultimately dismantle the foundations of free and fair elections."

"Nevada is an increasingly critical battleground state, and as the attacks on the integrity of our democracy intensify, so must our efforts to defend it," she added. "We are calling upon all Washoe residents—regardless of party or affiliation—to loudly speak out against this unconscionable resolution."

Nevada, which President Joe Biden carried narrowly in 2020, was one of the flashpoints of former President Donald Trump's failed attempt to overturn his electoral defeat—an effort animated by claims about large-scale fraud, voting machine hacking, and other falsehoods.

"Donald Trump won [Nevada] after you account for the fraud and irregularities that occurred," Trump campaign attorney Jesse Binnall told reporters in November 2020 as he announced an election lawsuit that the Nevada Supreme Court ultimately rejected.

Herman's new resolution is seen as an outgrowth of the Republican Party's commitment to acting on Trump's falsehoods about the 2020 election, which critics have collectively dubbed the "Big Lie."

As of Janu­ary 14 of this year, the Brennan Center for Justice notes in its latest analysis, GOP legis­lat­ors in at least 27 states have intro­duced, pre-filed, or carried over 250 bills that would curtail voting rights.

Related Content

According to the Nevada Independent, Herman's proposal "includes a change to 'stealth paper ballots as [the] primary method of voting,' and would provide for just a single electronic voting kiosk to comply with requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)."

"Other proposed measures call for all ballots to be counted by hand and continuously until counting is complete—the county saw more than 250,000 votes cast during the 2020 general election—and for Nevada National Guard personnel to be present at each polling and ballot box location and Washoe County's central counting center," the outlet noted. "The list also includes less-defined proposals open for interpretation, including 'providing equitable and fair opportunities for observation' and 'enacting any other measure that ensures the accuracy, security, and purity of elections.'"

Kerry Durmick, state director of All Voting Is Local Nevada, warned Thursday that "this anti-voter resolution would disenfranchise Washoe County voters by asking the Washoe County Registrar's office to implement unconstitutional and illegal measures."

"This resolution will only negatively impact access to the ballot," said Durmick, "and we urge the county commission to reject these measures and uphold the freedom to vote for all Nevadans.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.