radiofree.asia

Author: Jessica Corbett

  • South Dakota AG, Gov. Threaten Felony Charges for Pharmacists Prescribing Abortion Pills



    South Dakota’s Republican governor and attorney general on Tuesday issued a threatening letter directed at the state’s pharmacists in response to a recent move by the Biden administration to ease restrictions on dispensing abortion pills amid the GOP’s nationwide assault on reproductive freedom.

    Gov. Kristi Noem and AG Marty Jackley’s letter begins by noting that after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that reversed Roe v. Wade last year, abortion became illegal in South Dakota except to save the life of the pregnant person. It’s one of 14 states where abortions are now largely unavailable.

    The letter states that “in South Dakota, any person who administers, prescribes, or procures for any pregnant female any medicine or drug with the intent to induce an abortion is guilty of a felony.”

    In a policy change long advocated by medical experts and rights campaigners, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) earlier this month formalized a regulatory change to allow retail pharmacies in the U.S. to dispense mifepristone, one of two drugs often taken in tandem for a medication abortion.

    Referencing that development, the letter says that “under South Dakota law, pharmacies, including chain drug stores, are prohibited from procuring and dispensing abortion-inducing drugs with the intent to induce an abortion, and are subject to felony prosecution under South Dakota law, despite the recent FDA ruling.”

    As The Associated Press reported Tuesday:

    The [FDA’s] change could expand access at online pharmacies. People can get a prescription via telehealth consultation with a health professional and then receive the pills through the mail, where permitted by law.

    Still, in states like South Dakota, the rule change’s impact has been blunted by laws limiting abortion broadly and the pills specifically. Legal experts foresee years of court battles over access to the pills as abortion rights proponents bring test cases to challenge state restrictions.

    Amanda Bacon, the director of the South Dakota Pharmacists Association, said in an email that she was not aware of any South Dakota pharmacies with plans to participate in the federal program to dispense abortion pills.

    The pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, which tracks policies across the country, labels all six states that border South Dakota as restrictive of abortion access to various degrees—and South Dakota is among the dozen “most restrictive” states in the nation.

    Since the Dobbs decision, states with pro-choice policies—especially those like Illinois, which is surrounded by states with abortion restrictions—have seen an influx of “healthcare refugees.”

    While the FDA’s recent move was widely seen as a step toward alleviating some of the strain on clinics trying to serve a growing number of patients fleeing states with forced-birth policies, an ongoing legal battle over the agency’s initial approval of mifepristone in 2000 could jeopardize access to the drug nationwide.

    Anti-choice physicians last month asked Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk—appointed by former President Donald Trump to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas—to throw out the FDA’s 2000 decision. The judge, who was previously the deputy general counsel at a conservative Christian legal advocacy group, could issue a ruling as soon as February 10.

    If the Christian alliance that launched the attack on the FDA approval “wins in federal district court, the Biden administration would appeal to the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, a conservative court with 12 of its 16 active judges appointed by Republicans,” CNBC pointed out Tuesday. “From there, the case could end up at the Supreme Court.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • ‘Sounds Like a Plan’: Biden Given Roadmap for 100% Clean Energy by 2035



    A pair of green groups on Monday released a report detailing how U.S. President Joe Biden can work toward his goal of 100% clean electricity nationwide by 2035.

    The roadmap from Evergreen Action and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) comes after Biden last year signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) following a bitter battle in Congress. While elements of the legislation alarmed climate campaigners, they welcomed that it contained about $370 billion in climate and energy investments.

    “This new report not only shows that President Biden’s climate goals for the power sector are achievable—but it is among the first to lay out how we can actually get there,” said NRDC president and CEO Manish Bapna in a statement.

    “There is no time for half-measures or delay.”

    “We don’t need magic bullets or new technologies,” Bapna stressed. “We already have the tools—and now we have a roadmap. If the Biden administration, Congress, and state leaders follow it, we will build the better future we all deserve. There is no time for half-measures or delay.”

    While the Inflation Reduction Act is a positive step, new modeling in the report shows that “the U.S. must take further action to meet its clean energy goals this decade,” the publication states. “The IRA’s investments are projected to increase carbon-free electricity in the U.S. from approximately 40% in 2022 to 66% clean power by 2030. This falls short of the 80% target that’s consistent with the path to 100% clean electricity by 2035.”

    The legislation “is also estimated to help cut economy-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution to 40% below 2005 levels by 2030—an important step, but short of America’s 50-52% commitment under the Paris agreement,” the report adds.

    To deliver on Biden’s climate pledges, the report urges U.S. policymakers to:

    • Set ambitious carbon pollution standards for new and existing power plants under the Clean Air Act, through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and set EPA pollution standards that reduce traditional air and water pollutants and improve public health;
    • Expand transmission capacity, speed up interconnections, and create market parity for clean energy at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC);
    • Implement the Inflation Reduction Act effectively, with timely federal guidance on the IRA’s tax credits and grant programs and the distribution of funds in a way that maximizes carbon reductions and equitable economic opportunity; and
    • Advance climate action at the state level, including through accelerated 100% clean electricity and pollution standards that align with 80% clean power by 2030 and heightened oversight of polluting utilities.

    “The IRA was a pivotal moment for climate action in the United States, but it is not mission accomplished for the Biden climate agenda,” said Evergreen Action power sector policy lead Charles Harper. “President Biden committed to the most ambitious set of climate goals in American history—including getting us to 100% clean power by 2035 and slashing 2005 climate pollution levels in half by 2030.”

    “Important progress has been made, but President Biden must take bold action this year in order to deliver on those commitments,” Harper continued. “By ramping up its work to transition the U.S. economy toward 100% clean energy, the Biden administration and state leaders can reduce toxic pollution, cut energy costs, create good jobs, and advance environmental justice. Let’s get to work.”

    Although further progress could be hampered by Republicans controlling the U.S. House of Representatives, advocates are emphasizing the importance of the president and other supporters of climate action not wasting the remainder of his first term.

    Evergreen co-founder and senior adviser Sam Ricketts, who co-authored the report, told The Washington Post that “it’s really incumbent upon the administration to use these next two years to make important progress on cleaning up the power sector.”

    Ricketts plans to join Bapna, Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.), the NRDC’s Lissa Lynch, and University of California, Santa Barbara professor Leah Stokes for a Tuesday afternoon presentation of the new report.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • In Fox News Opinion Piece, Sanders Takes Aim at Big Pharma Greed



    “Today, millions of Americans are making the unacceptable choice between feeding their families or buying the medicine they need. Seniors from Vermont to Alaska are forced to split pills in half and many have died because they did not have enough money to fill their prescriptions.”

    That’s what U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote in an opinion piece published Monday by Fox News as the two-time Democratic presidential candidate prepares to take charge of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee.

    Sanders stressed that despite national divisions, “on one of the most important matters facing our country the American people—Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Progressives, Conservatives—could not be more united. And that is the need to take on the unprecedented corporate greed of the pharmaceutical industry and to substantially lower the outrageously high price of prescription drugs.”

    If Congress had the courage to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry, we could cut the price of prescription drugs in America by at least 50%.

    Various polls from the past two years show that 88% of U.S. adults support making it easier for generic medicines to come to market and restricting how much drug companies can increase prices each year while 83% support allowing the government to negotiate lower prices for Medicare and private insurance.

    The Inflation Reduction Act signed last year by President Joe Biden contains modest drug pricing reforms—including allowing Medicare negotiation for some medicines—but not nearly at the scale that Sanders and others had advocated.

    “All over this country, the American people are asking, why it is that they pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs?” Sanders wrote. “Why is it that nearly 1 out of every 4 adults in America cannot afford their prescription medication? Why do nearly half of all new drugs in the United States cost more than $150,000 a year?”

    “How is it that in Canada and other major countries the same medications manufactured by the same companies, sold in the same bottles are available for a fraction of the price that we pay in the United States?” the senator asked, recalling when, in 2019, he joined a busload of people with diabetes who traveled from Detroit, Michigan, to Windsor, Ontario to buy insulin for a fraction of what they pay in the United States.

    “The answers,” he asserted, “can be summed up in three words: Follow the money.”

    Sanders noted the billions of dollars that Big Pharma has pumped into stock buybacks and political lobbying as well as the millions spent on campaign contributions in recent decades. He also pointed out the massive profits that industry giants rake in annually “as Americans die because they cannot afford the medications they need.”

    “Examples of corporate greed within the pharmaceutical industry are limitless. Let’s start with Moderna,” the senator wrote, detailing how the company “received $1.7 billion from U.S. taxpayers to research and develop the Covid-19 vaccine and billions more to distribute it to the American people,” but now reportedly plans to hike the price.

    As Common Dreams previously reported, Sanders expressed his outrage over Moderna’s potential price increase for the vaccine—a 4,000% markup over its estimated production cost of less than $3 per dose and a quadrupling of the $26.36 price tag for the U.S. government—earlier this month in a letter to CEO Stéphane Bancel.

    On Monday, Moderna was far from the senator’s only target. He also called out Pfizer’s ties to the Republican Party as well as Sovaldi for cashing in on a hepatitis C pill; Japanese drugmaker Astellas for increasing the U.S. price of the prostate cancer drug Xtandi; and Eli Lilly for hiking the price of the medical insulin Humalog.

    “It does not have to be this way,” Sanders argued. “The reality is that if Congress had the courage to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry, we could cut the price of prescription drugs in America by at least 50%. How? By preventing the pharmaceutical industry from charging more for prescription drugs in the U.S. than they do in Canada, Britain, Germany, France and Japan—a concept that is not only supported by progressives, but former President Donald Trump. I will soon be re-introducing legislation in the Senate to do just that.”

    “A lifesaving drug is not effective if a person who needs that drug cannot afford it,” he concluded. “How many more Americans must die before Congress finally has the guts to stop the pharmaceutical industry from getting away with murder?”

    While Sanders’ takeover of the Senate HELP Committee reportedly has some healthcare industry lobbyists worried—given his longtime criticism of corporate influence on Capitol Hill and support for policies to serve working people, slash drug costs, and create a public universal healthcare system—progress on those fronts is expected to be hampered over the next two years by right-wing Democrats and the GOP’s narrow control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • ‘We Can’t Back Down’: Congresswomen Share Their Abortion Stories on Roe Anniversary



    As thousands of people gathered at pro-choice rallies across the United States, multiple congresswomen marked the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade on Sunday by sharing their own experiences with abortion care and renewing calls to protect reproductive rights in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court reversing its landmark ruling.

    “I’m one of the 1 in 4 women in America who has had an abortion. Terminating my pregnancy was not an easy choice, but more importantly, it was MY choice,” tweeted Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who has previously shared her story in a New York Times opinion piece and during a House hearing.

    “Everyone’s story is different, but I know this for certain: The choice to have an abortion belongs to pregnant people, not the government. We are not free if we cannot make these fundamental choices about our bodies,” she continued. “MAGA Republicans’ extreme abortion bans aren’t about saving lives, they’re about control. We must stand up and fight these bans. Together.”

    Fellow Washington state Democrat Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez, who was sworn in for her first term earlier this month, wrote on Twitter: “Three years ago I miscarried in the second trimester of a pregnancy. It’s a painful memory but something many women have experienced. I traveled hours to the nearest clinic, and I encountered anti-choice protesters. Thankfully I got the care I needed that day.”

    “I had been told without an immediate abortion, or dilation and evacuation, that my life was at risk. That I could die, or not be able to have children in the future. I got the care I needed, and now I’m the mother of my 17-month-old son,” she said. “On what would’ve been Roe v. Wade‘s 50th anniversary, I’m thinking of the millions of Americans with stories like mine who are forced to go without access to safe reproductive care. I won’t stop fighting to restore this fundamental right and defend reproductive freedom for all.”

    Nearly seven months since the high court’s right-wing majority overturned Roe with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, “abortion is currently unavailable in 14 states, and courts have temporarily blocked enforcement of bans in eight others,” according to a December review by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, which tracks state laws.

    Just after the Dobbs decision leaked last May, Elle published a roundtable discussion with the only five then-members of Congress who had publicly shared abortion stories: Jayapal; Sen. Gary Peters, whose ex-wife got a potentially lifesaving emergency abortion in the 1980s; and Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), and Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), who did not seek reelection last year.

    In the weeks that followed, Reps. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) and Marie Newman (D-Ill.)—who lost her June primary after redistricting—also detailed their abortions when they were each 19 years old. During a House hearing, Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.) shared that “when my doctor finally induced me, I faced the pain of labor without hope for a living child.”

    “Would it have been after the first miscarriage, after doctors used what would be an illegal drug to abort the lost fetus?” McBath asked. “Would you have put me in jail after the second miscarriage?”

    McBath took to Twitter Sunday to highlight that testimony and warn that “without Roe, all reproductive care is on the line.”

    Bush—who has spoken about seeking an abortion after becoming pregnant as a result of rape at 17—said in a statement Sunday that “the Roe v. Wade decision was not only historic in that it protected people accessing abortions; it also served as precedent for several more court cases and laws to follow that would further advance gender equality, reproductive rights, and our collective freedoms.”

    “Unfortunately, we all know what happened last June. Republicans spent decades stacking the federal judiciary with far-right anti-abortion judges and successfully stripped millions of people of their right to safe, legal, and accessible abortion care, particularly Black, Brown, LGBTQ+, and other marginalized communities,” she said. “And, let’s be clear, Republicans aren’t stopping with Roe.”

    “In just their first couple of days in power, House Republicans passed two anti-abortion bills in a blatant attempt to lay the groundwork for a national abortion ban,” added Bush, who was among the 17 federal lawmakers arrested in July while protesting Dobbs at the Supreme Court. “As a congresswoman, a mother, a pastor, and as a person who has had abortions, I will never stop fighting for a person’s bodily autonomy, reproductive rights, and for a country that lives up to its proclamation of freedom.”

    Moore—who represents a state where abortion is now unavailable due to a contested 1849 ban—issued a similar warning in a series of tweets, declaring that “this Roe anniversary is a reminder of what we’ve lost, and we must fight for a future that creates more equitable healthcare access for all.”

    “The chaos we’ve seen over the past six months is the environment anti-abortion politicians have worked for decades to create, and they won’t stop with Roe. While we work to protect and restore access to abortion, more attacks on sexual and reproductive health are happening now,” she said. “The path ahead will be challenging. It will require us to think bolder than ever before to ensure our very basic rights and freedoms are permanently protected—not subject to whoever happens to be in power.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • ‘Open Admission of Fraud’: United CEO Says Airlines Are Scheduling Flights They Can’t Fulfill



    Three unidentified U.S. airlines are under federal investigation for potentially scheduling flights the companies know they ultimately will not be able to fly—a revelation The New York Times reported Friday, just two days after United Airlines’ CEO suggested competitors are doing just that.

    The Times focused largely on how air travel issues—including mass cancellations from a winter storm during the holidays last month and a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) system outage that grounded air traffic across the country last week—have put Pete Buttigieg, the head of the U.S. Department of Transporation (DOT), “in the hot seat.”

    “Unfortunately, the Department of Transportation has been hesitant to hold the airlines accountable,” John Breyault, the vice president for public policy at the National Consumers League (NCL), told the newspaper. “While Secretary Buttigieg has talked a tough talk, particularly over the past few months, we have yet to see that really translate into action.”

    “Imagine any other industry taking money for products it can’t deliver.”

    In an interview, Buttigieg defended his record—which has included a proposed rule on refunds, an online dashboard of airlines’ commitments, and nearly $16 million in fines—saying that “in terms of what we’ve done and in terms of what we’re doing, I would stack up our work in this area against anybody who’s taken this on at the federal level.”

    According to the report, “The department is also investigating three U.S. airlines over whether they scheduled flights that they did not have enough staff to support, a spokeswoman for the agency said, though she declined to identify the airlines.”

    That reporting came after United CEO Scott Kirby said Wednesday during an earnings call with investors that “there are a number of airlines who cannot fly their schedules. The customers are paying the price. They’re canceling a lot of flights. But they simply can’t fly the schedules today.”

    “What happened over the holidays wasn’t a one-time event caused by the weather, and it wasn’t just at one airline. One airline got the bulk of the media coverage, but the weather was the straw that broke the camel’s back for several,” Kirby said—presumably referring to Southwest Airlines, which faced intense scrutiny for canceling nearly 17,000 flights partly due to issues with its personnel management system that employees and other critics claim could have been avoided with technological upgrades.

    United has recognized “the new reality and the new math for all airlines,” Kirby asserted, while warning that “our industry has been changed profoundly by the pandemic and you can’t run your airline like it’s 2019 or you will fail.”

    “We believe any airline that tries to run at the same staffing levels that it had pre-pandemic is bound to fail and likely to tip over to meltdown anytime there are weather or air traffic control stresses in the system,” the CEO said, highlighting the need for investments in not only staff but also technology and infrastructure.

    Kirby’s comments about competitors’ alleged scheduling practices caught the attention of the anti-monopoly think tank American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), which described them as “the airlines’ open admission of fraud.”

    “What an extraordinary admission,” William McGee, senior fellow for aviation and travel at AELP and author of the airline industry exposé Attention All Passengers, tweeted Thursday.

    For months, the AELP has asked the DOT “to investigate IF airlines were accepting bookings (and $!) for flights they couldn’t operate,” he said. “Now United’s CEO confirmed it. Imagine any other industry taking money for products it can’t deliver.”

    “Ironically, we’re learning more about canceled flights from the airlines than we are from the Department of Transportation,” McGee told The Lever, while also pointing out that the DOT’s “complaint database showed that United was by far the worst offender on unpaid refunds dating back to the earliest days of Covid in 2020.”

    As The Lever reported Friday:

    Complaints against the major U.S. airlines, including United, more than tripled in the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic, as companies routinely sold tickets for flights they could not adequately staff, canceled the flights at the last minute, and slow-walked or withheld refunds while collecting billions in taxpayer bailout dollars.

    The behavior prompted 34 attorneys general to write to Buttigieg on December 16 asking his agency to “require airlines to advertise and sell only flights that they have adequate personnel to fly and support, and perform regular audits of airlines to ensure compliance and impose fines on airlines that do not comply.”

    The letter, submitted as part of the rulemaking process for a still-delayed consumer protection proposal at Buttigieg’s agency, also noted that the proposed rule “includes no provision that would correct this practice and that would prevent airlines from advertising and selling tickets for flights that they cannot reasonably provide.”

    In an opinion piece published by the Times last week in the wake of the FAA outage, the AELP’s McGee traced U.S. air travel troubles back much further than the ongoing pandemic, explaining that although “the airlines were initially regulated in the 1930s for many reasons, some of which should be familiar to us in 2023,” Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) in 1978.

    “One could envision a wholesale return to the pre-1978 era, with route-setting and price-setting brought back into public hands entirely,” he wrote, noting that the AELP “has proposed more FAA funding and eliminating federal preemption, which would allow consumers and state officials to sue airlines over consumer and safety rules.”

    “My colleagues and I are, however, eager to take part in a national conversation about regulating the industry more comprehensively,” McGee added. “We haven’t had a national discussion for 44 years about the state of air travel. It’s time to have that discussion, rather than playing whack-a-mole with each crisis as it arises.”

    Buttigieg “has taken a tougher line than most of his predecessors” at the DOT, the NCL’s Breyault tweeted Friday, while sharing his critical remarks to the Times. “But he is hamstrung by the ADA, which gives airlines far too much power. To truly protect passengers, Congress needs to act.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • 250+ Groups Call On El Salvador to Drop Charges Against Water Defenders

    More than 250 organizations from 29 countries came together Friday to pressure the Salvadoran government to drop the charges against and release five water defenders who were instrumental in achieving a 2017 legislative ban on metal mining in El Salvador.

    Global alarm has been building since Miguel Ángel Gámez, Alejandro Laínez García, Pedro Antonio Rivas Laínez, Teodoro Antonio Pacheco, and Saúl Agustín Rivas Ortega were detained in northern El Salvador on January 11. In a case that critics call politically motivated, they are accused of murdering an alleged military informant over three decades ago and of illicit association, which the government of Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has used to detain tens of thousands of supposed gang members.

    The groups’ joint statement highlights that “thanks in part to its ill-advised embrace of Bitcoin, the Salvadoran government is under enormous pressure to find new revenues” and is reportedly considering reversing the historic mining ban—despite environmental concerns and the Central American country’s ongoing water issues due to the climate emergency and pollution.

    “Among El Salvador’s greatest heroes of this century are the brave water defenders, including several of those arrested last week.”

    “The five are accused by El Salvador’s attorney general of an alleged murder over 30 years ago during the brutal civil war in El Salvador that claimed the lives of 75,000,” explained the organizations. “The victims of crimes from that war, which saw a U.S.-backed dictatorship and right-wing death squads kill tens of thousands, have, for decades, been calling for justice.”

    “The current government, however, has chosen to actively uphold decades of impunity,” the groups continued. “Rather than investigate or prosecute those responsible for the dozens of cases of human rights violations and crimes against humanity that members of the Salvadoran military committed against the Santa Marta community (including the murders of the Lempa River massacre in 1980, where 30 people were assassinated and 189 were disappeared), the government is now re-victimizing the community by targeting their leaders, who have been outspoken against the policies of the current government.”

    “This further raises questions about whether the attorney general’s true motivation is to attempt to silence these water defenders, especially in light of the current administration’s crusade to criminalize, persecute, and demobilize its political opponents,” adds the statement, spearheaded by the U.S.-based Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)—which in 2009 honored the National Roundtable on Metals Mining, a coalition the arrested men helped build, with its annual Letelier-Moffitt Human Rights Award.

    The collective demand that Bukele’s government “drop the charges against the five water defenders and otherwise release them from prison to await their trial” came a day after a Salvadoran judge ruled that the case should proceed and the leaders of the Association of Economic and Social Development (ADES) Santa Marta should remain detained.

    “Among El Salvador’s greatest heroes of this century are the brave water defenders, including several of those arrested last week, who led the 13-year fight that culminated in El Salvador’s legislature voting unanimously in 2017 to make that country the first in the world to ban all metals mining to save its rivers,” IPS senior adviser John Cavanagh told Common Dreams.

    Cavanagh, who co-authored with Robin Broad The Water Defenders: How Ordinary People Saved a Country from Corporate Greed, stressed that Bukele “is desperate for revenues” because he “has so mismanaged El Salvador’s finances.”

    “So for Bukele’s government, why not arrest key water defenders if you are exploring overturning the mining ban for the revenues that gold mining brings?” he said. “This is the great fear of water defenders in El Salvador. And, this is why there is now a global outcry over these arrests.”

    Pedro Cabezas of the Central American Alliance on Mining said in an email to Common Dreams that “different from previous presidents, the government of Nayib Bukele has shown no interest in implementing pending aspects of the mining prohibitions of 2017, like environmental remediation and reparation for the victims of the mining conflicts.”

    “On the contrary,” he explained, “recent government actions signal an imminent reopening of the mining sector: El Salvador joined the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining in 2021, legislation to create a Directorate of Hydrocarbons, Energy, and Mines was passed at the legislature this year, there are rumors that the current secret negotiations of a Free Trade Agreement with China involve negotiations on mining, and there are testimonies from the communities that representatives of mining companies are visiting their territories to offer social programs and to lease large quantities of land.”

    “With that in mind,” Cabezas concluded, “the only explanation for the arbitrary detention of five community leaders of Santa Marta, the community that led the anti-mining struggle for more than 12 years in order to protect the fragile water supply in El Salvador, is to demobilize potential grassroots opposition to the government’s plans.”

    Given Bukele and Attorney General Rodolfo Delgado’s track records as well as the state of exception that began in March—under which state security forces have been accused of widespread human rights abuses—advocates in El Salvador and around the world fear for the men’s safety.

    As Yesenia Portillo, program director at the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), told Common Dreams: “Under ordinary circumstances, the arrests of internationally recognized water defenders would be major cause for concern. But in El Salvador today, where torture and deadly prison conditions reign under the current state of exception, this quickly becomes a matter of life and death.”

    While allies of the water defenders have pointed out that “the allegations against them have major holes and contradictions, President Bukele’s near-total control over both the judiciary and the prosecution casts serious doubt on whether a fair trial is even possible,” Portillo said. “Since Attorney General Delgado was illegally appointed last May, virtually all cases he has brought have been sent to trial—whether there is evidence or not—and even the most compelling petitions for alternative measures to avoid a lengthy pretrial detention get denied.”

    “We are deeply concerned for the well-being of these men and the dangerous precedent this sets in El Salvador,” Portillo added. “With these arrests, the Bukele administration is indicating to the world that their idea of ‘justice’ is to allow the atrocities carried out by U.S.-backed state forces during the 1980s to remain in impunity, while punishing the leaders of communities, like Santa Marta, who bore the brunt of that very violence.”

    This post has been updated with comment from CISPES.

  • Low Union Numbers Amid Organizing Wave Spark Calls for US Labor Law Fixes



    Labor advocates renewed calls for boosting U.S. worker rights and protections on Thursday as federal data revealed that despite union membership rising by 273,000 from 2021 to 2022, a jump in nonunion jobs meant the unionization rate fell from 10.3% to a record low of 10.1%.

    “In 1983, the first year where comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1% and there were 17.7 million union workers,” the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) noted in a statement announcing the new figures.

    “These statistics highlight the need for the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act and the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act.”

    The number of workers who held a job covered by a union contract—including those who report no union affiliation—rose by 200,000 to 16 million last year, but the percentage of employees represented dropped from 11.6% to 11.3%, according to the BLS.

    The bureau found that though 7.1 million public sector employees belonged to unions in 2022, similar to the 7.2 million private sector workers, the union membership rate was 33.1% for the public sector compared with just 6% for the private sector.

    As The Washington Post reported:

    The lackluster figures reflect how far unions have to go to see an upsurge in membership, especially in a year of booming job growth. More than 5 million jobs were created in 2022 across the economy, especially in industries where union membership is lower, such as leisure and hospitality, meaning union jobs did not outpace the growth of nonunion jobs. The economy also launched millions of new businesses, where jobs rarely start off unionized. And many of the high-profile victories at Starbucks, Apple, and REI, for example, added a relatively small number of union members. A 2022 Bloomberg analysis of labor data found that the average unionized Starbucks store added 27 workers to union rolls.

    Despite the continued low union numbers, labor historians say there’s been a major shift underway, propelled by pandemic conditions, in how Americans view unions. More Americans said they approved of unions in 2022 than at any point since 1965—some 71% of those polled, according to Gallup.

    Responding to the BLS release, the AFL-CIO, a federation of unions representing 12.5 million workers, asserted, “These statistics highlight the need for the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act and the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, which will hold union-busting companies and organizations accountable and give workers the negotiating power they deserve.”

    Specifically pointing to the record-low unionization rate last year, Nina Turner, a former Democratic congressional candidate and senior fellow at the Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy, said that “this is a move in the wrong direction.”

    Noting the same statistic, Democrats on the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce tweeted: “Unfortunately, this is not a surprise even though unions are extremely popular among workers. This is a direct result of employers using illegal union-busting tactics and Republicans turning their backs on working people.”

    The panel’s Democrats also called on Congress to pass the PRO Act—a historic proposal to reform U.S. labor laws to better serve workers, spearheaded by the committee’s ranking member, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

    “Every worker deserves a union,” Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who was elected in November, said in a statement Thursday. “Unions built the middle class and they built America. It’s time to pass the PRO Act and drastically expand union membership across this country.”

    A trio of Economic Policy Institute experts who analyzed recent data from both the BLS and the National Labor Relations Board pointed out Thursday that between October 2021 and last September, the NLRB saw a 53% increase in union election petitions, and “evidence suggests that in 2022 more than 60 million workers wanted to join a union, but couldn’t.”

    “The fact that tens of millions of workers want to join a union and can’t is a glaring testament to how broken U.S. labor law is,” they wrote. “It is urgent that Congress pass the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act and the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act. State legislatures must also take available measures to boost unionization and collective bargaining.”

    Despite union-busting efforts from powerful corporations, last year saw a wave of high-profile worker victories. Employees at Apple, Amazon, Chipotle, Google, Starbucks, Minor League Baseball, T-Mobile, Trader Joe’s, and beyond successfully organized.

    “In 2022, we saw working people rising up despite often illegal opposition from companies that would rather pay union-busting firms millions than give workers a seat at the table,” AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler said Thursday. “The momentum of the moment we are in is clear.”

    “Organizing victories are happening in every industry, public and private, and every sector of our economy all across the country,” she added. “The wave of organizing will continue to gather steam in 2023 and beyond despite broken labor laws that rig the system against workers.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • New Biden Policy Could Protect Migrant Worker Whistleblowers From Deportation

    Migrant workers and advocates on Friday applauded a Biden administration policy to help protect noncitizen employees who are victims or witnesses of labor rights violations “from threats of immigration-related retaliation from the exploitive employers.” The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that noncitizens will be able to submit requests for temporary relief from deportation or…

    Source

  • Labor, Rights Groups Praise Biden Policy Boosting Migrant Worker Protections



    Migrant workers and advocates on Friday applauded a Biden administration policy to help protect noncitizen employees who are victims or witnesses of labor rights violations “from threats of immigration-related retaliation from the exploitive employers.”

    The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that noncitizens will be able to submit requests for temporary relief from deportation or other immigration actions to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) “through a central intake point established specifically to support labor agency investigative and enforcement efforts.”

    “This policy will change lives, but only if our local and national leaders stand with workers loud and clear, to make this policy a reality.”

    DHS said that “for deferred action requests from noncitizens who are in removal proceedings or have a final order of removal, upon reviewing the submission for completeness, USCIS will forward such requests to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to make a final determination on a case-by-case basis.”

    As Daniel Costa, director of immigration law and policy research at the Economic Policy Institute, explained Friday in a blog post welcoming the announcement:

    Given the current budget constraints of federal labor standards enforcement agencies—which are funded at just one-twelfth the rate of immigration enforcement agencies—the use of deferred action in this manner will encourage workers and whistleblowers to speak out without fear and will act as a force multiplier for underfunded and understaffed labor enforcement agencies, thereby assisting them in their mission to protect worker rights and hold lawbreaking employers accountable. This will make workplaces safer for all workers.

    Organizations from the Blue Ribbon Commission on Immigrant Work praised the policy, with Haydi Torres, an organizer with Unidad Latina en Acción NJ, declaring that “this is a huge victory for undocumented workers and the labor movement.”

    “Our fight goes beyond our immigration status, it is a fight for all the workers who sustain the economy of this country,” Torres said. “Without our hands there is no work.”

    Yale Law School professor James Bhandary-Alexander, an attorney with Unidad Latina en Acción CT, said that “the threat of deportation is like a gun in the boss’s hand, pointed at workers and their rights.”

    Workers’ rights leaders such as Victor Agreda agreed, saying that “the bosses always act like they have more power than the workers.”

    While “my co-workers and I overcame our fear to denounce labor abuses,” Agreda said, “deferred action is labor justice for all workers who remain silent in the face of abuse.”

    Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas asserted Friday that “unscrupulous employers who prey on the vulnerability of noncitizen workers harm all workers and disadvantage businesses who play by the rules.”

    “We will hold these predatory actors accountable by encouraging all workers to assert their rights, report violations they have suffered or observed, and cooperate in labor standards investigations,” he pledged. “Through these efforts, and with our labor agency partners, we will effectively protect the American labor market, the conditions of the American worksite, and the dignity of the workers who power our economy.”

    Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union (RWDSU), said that “today’s announcement by Secretary Mayorkas is welcome news. Immigrant workers are critical to the success of our economy, yet they are among those who suffer the most exploitation and abuse at work, and then suffer further from intimidation and retaliation when they stand up for their rights.”

    Since then-President-elect Joe Biden announced Marty Walsh as his nominee to lead the U.S. Department of Labor in October 2021, migrant worker advocates have pressured the administration to ensure that its immigration and labor policies are aligned and to protect whistleblowers by removing the threat of deportation.

    “From Las Vegas to Washington D.C., to Mississippi to New York, we have fought tirelessly to reach this moment,” Rosario Ortiz of the Arriba Las Vegas Worker Center noted Friday. “My coworkers and I have been fighting our case for more than three years, facing threats and intimidation on top of wage theft and health and safety risks as workers of Unforgettable Coatings Inc.”

    “We’ve met personally with Secretary Walsh and Secretary Maryokas to call for these protections,” Ortiz said. “Today I am proud of my coworkers and our brothers and sisters across the country who have helped open a pathway for others in our circumstances to seek the protections that we have won.”

    While celebrating the administration’s move, Unidad Latina en Acción CT director John Jairo Lugo stressed that “words without actions are not enough. This policy will change lives, but only if our local and national leaders stand with workers loud and clear, to make this policy a reality.”

    National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) co-executive director Nadia Marin-Molina vowed that “we are going to fight like hell in the days and weeks ahead to ensure that every single worker who qualifies can get the benefit of this new policy.”

    “We are going to fight like hell in the days and weeks ahead to ensure that every single worker who qualifies can get the benefit of this new policy.”

    Farmworker Justice, which also applauded the announcement, pointed out that the policy “will have a particularly powerful impact among farmworkers, more than half of whom are either undocumented or on precarious H-2A work visas, and their families.”

    “Farmworker Justice has supported advocate demands for these protections for many years, and we look forward to continued engagement with DHS as well as labor enforcement agencies to educate farmworkers and their advocates about the new guidance,” the group said. “We will also continue to advocate for comprehensive solutions that improve the lives of farmworkers and their families, including legislation that provides immigrant workers with a path to citizenship, protections against workplace hazards like extreme heat and pesticides, and the elimination of unjust farmworker exclusions from federal labor protections.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Staff at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant in War-Torn Ukraine Awarded for Heroism

    A U.S.-based group on Friday recognized the “heroic” Ukrainian staff at a Russian-controlled nuclear power plant, highlighting concerns about the facility nearly 11 months into Russia’s invasion.

    The Arms Control Association (ACA) hosts an annual online contest celebrating efforts to “advance disarmament, nuclear security, nonproliferation, civilian protection, and international peace, security, and justice.”

    “Russia’s illegal and unprecedented occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant created an untenable nuclear safety and security situation.”

    After thousands of votes were cast from nearly 80 countries, the Energoatom workers at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) were selected as the 2022 Arms Control Persons of the Year.

    ZNPP is one of four nuclear energy facilities in Ukraine, also home to the Chernobyl disaster of 1986. Ukrainian workers remain at the six-reactor Zaporizhzhia plant despite the Russian military’s takeover and shelling that the countries have blamed on each other.

    “Russia’s illegal and unprecedented occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant created an untenable nuclear safety and security situation,” said Kelsey Davenport, ACA’s director for nonproliferation policy, in a statement. “In the face of harassment and threats by Russian forces, Ukrainian personnel have continued to operate the plant and avert a nuclear crisis.”

    “The international community owes a debt of gratitude to the heroism and bravery of the Zaporizhzhia personnel, but this dire situation cannot continue,” Davenport stressed. “The ongoing safety and security risks underscore the critical importance of establishing a zone of protection at the site, returning control of Zaporizhzhia to Ukraine, and strengthening the norm against targeting civilian nuclear infrastructure.”

    Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), plans to travel to Ukraine next week to discuss a proposed nuclear safety and security protection zone around ZNPP with Ukrainian government officials in Kyiv.

    “I remain determined to make the much-needed protection zone a reality as soon as possible,” Grossi said in a statement Friday. “My consultations with Ukraine and Russia are making progress, albeit not as fast as they should. I remain hopeful that we will be able to agree and implement the zone soon.”

    Since the IAEA Support and Assistance Mission to Zaporizhzhya (ISAMZ) was established in September, five groups of agency experts have spent time at the facility, with the latest team arriving this week.

    As the IAEA detailed:

    The ISAMZ team reports that the ZNPP’s last remaining 330 kilovolt (kV) backup power line is now connected to the plant, after suffering some further disconnections in the last week, highlighting the continued fragile off-site power supply situation for Europe’s largest NPP. The ZNPP’s six reactors are in shutdown but still need electricity for reactor cooling and other essential nuclear safety and security functions. The ZNPP receives off-site power also from its last remaining operational 750 kV external power line. In case of loss of external power, all the site’s 20 diesel backup generators are ready to supply the site with the electricity needed for all safety related equipment. In addition, nine mobile diesel-fueled boilers are now operating to help prevent critical ZNPP systems from freezing during the winter and provide heating for ZNPP personnel. The situation at the ZNPP remains precarious.

    The agency also noted that ZNPP staff are under pressure to accept new labor contracts with the Russian state nuclear energy company Rosatom, which the national Ukrainian operator Energoatom has discouraged.

    “The reduced ZNPP staffing levels combined with psychological stress due to the ongoing military conflict and the absence of family members who fled the area have created an unprecedented situation that no NPP staff should have to endure,” said Grossi.

    “As this tragic war enters its second year, we must continue to do everything we can to avert the danger of a serious nuclear accident that would cause even more suffering and destruction for the people of Ukraine and beyond,” he emphasized.

    In addition to meeting with officials in the Ukrainian capital, Grossi plans to visit the South Ukraine and Rivne nuclear plants as well as to the Chernobyl site to launch the missions of two experts at each facility. The IAEA also intends to soon station a two-member team at the Khmelnitsky plant. The missions were requested by the Ukrainian government, according to the global agency.

    “Soon the IAEA will be permanently present at all of Ukraine’s nuclear pwer facilities, including Chernobyl,” Grossi said. “This is an important step in our work to help Ukraine during these immensely difficult and challenging times. Our nuclear safety and security experts will monitor the situation at the plants, assess their equipment and other needs, provide technical support and advice, and report their findings to IAEA headquarters.”

    Discussing his Ukraine trip on an Italian television channel earlier this week, Grossi said: “After that, there is hope to get to Moscow. The plant is Ukrainian but under Russian control, and it is a reality. And I have to work with both sides.”

    “Our duty is to secure the plant. The establishment of a permanent group [of IAEA observers] is the first concrete and tangible result of our efforts, but we cannot stop; the main thing is to protect the plant’s safety,” he continued, stressing the need for a deal to establish a zone around ZNPP.

    “This agreement is not impossible,” he said, “because a nuclear accident is not in the interests of anyone, not even the Russians.”

  • House GOP ‘Insurrection Protection Committee Is a Sham,’ Says Pressley



    Progressives in the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday blasted Republicans for using their narrow majority to establish a panel headed by a far-right congressman to “expose the abuses committed by the unelected, unaccountable federal bureaucracy.”

    In a 221-211 vote along party lines, the GOP approved a resolution creating a Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, under the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

    “The goal is not justice, but to delegitimize credible investigations into people who attempted to overthrow our government.”

    Jordan—who infamously defied a congressional subpoena to testify about the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump—took aim at the U.S. Homeland Security and Justice departments as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and key House Democrats in a Tuesday floor speech advocating for the subcommittee.

    “Mr. Jordan, who was deeply involved in Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, has for months been investigating what he says is a bias in federal law enforcement against conservatives,” The New York Times reported. “Now that Republicans have the majority, he plans to use his gavel and his subpoena power to escalate and expand that inquiry, including searching for evidence that federal workers have become politicized and demanding documents about ongoing criminal investigations.”

    While Republicans in Congress have compared their now-official panel to the historic Church Committee—which, in the 1970s, “labored for 16 months to produce a 5,000-page report that is a canonical history of the secret government,” as journalist Chris Hayes wrote for The Nation in 2009—progressives, including Hayes last week, have challenged that comparison.

    “In 1975, the Senate created a bipartisan Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said after the vote. “Dubbed the Church Committee, the panel uncovered the surveillance and abuses against civil rights leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., as well as illegal programs to assassinate foreign leaders. Minnesota legend Walter Mondale served on the committee and his questions helped uncover abuses of power.”

    Explaining her “no” vote, Omar continued:

    I had high hopes that this would be a Church-style committee, where we could investigate surveillance of American citizens, violations of civil liberties, and the intelligence community’s overseas abuses of power.

    It is clear that this committee is going to be one of personal grievances and defending insurrectionists, led by members who are themselves being investigated for their role in the January 6th insurrection and who have openly defied accountability by not complying with congressional subpoenas. The goal is not justice, but to delegitimize credible investigations into people who attempted to overthrow our government.

    Additionally, agency oversight belongs in the House Committee on Oversight and Reform or on an independent committee. The fact that this is being formed under the Judiciary Committee suggests that the goal isn’t accountability but rather to obstruct justice and undercut legal investigations they don’t agree with.

    Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), a fellow “Squad” member, was similarly critical on Tuesday.

    “The federal government has already been weaponized by Republicans against Black, brown, and other marginalized groups,” she said. “So unless they’re investigating themselves, this Insurrection Protection Committee is a sham.”

    Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) called the committee “a fascist power grab to evade accountability” for the January 6 attack.

    Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) tied the creation of the new panel to the 15 votes and backroom deals it took last week for House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to get far-right members of his party to stop blocking his path to the leadership position.

    “House Republicans just created a committee with unprecedented power to review criminal investigations and access high-level intelligence for political purposes,” Pocan said. “This is what Speaker McCarthy was willing to compromise to be speaker. It’s wild.”

    There were also critics beyond Congress—including Noah Bookbinder, president of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

    “This new House subcommittee, specifically set up to investigate ongoing investigations by the Justice Department and FBI into Donald Trump and others, is dangerous and threatens accountability and the rule of law,” he said. “We can’t accept this as normal.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Chaos erupts after far-Right attack on Brazilian Congress


    Chaos erupts after far-Right attack on Brazilian Congress     Far-Right supporters of ousted Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro have failed to overthrow the nation’s government, leading to hundreds of arrests. read now…

  • 1,500 Bolsonaro Backers Detained After Far-Right Coup Attempt in Brazil



    Brazilian Justice Minister Flávio Dino said Monday that “about 1,500” people have been arrested since supporters of Brazil’s far-right former President Jair Bolsonaro attacked government buildings in Brasília the previous day.

    Dino said that at least 209 people were arrested Sunday and “about 1,200” were detained Monday, as authorities dismantled a protest camp set up near military headquarters in the federal capital, according to CNN.

    “This attack is the culmination of a campaign by Bolsonaro and his allies to undermine democratic institutions.”

    The attack on Brazil’s National Congress, presidential palace, and top court came a week after the inauguration of leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who beat Bolsonoro in an October runoff. Since the election, some Bolsonaro supporters have advocated a military coup to oust Lula.

    Neither man was in Brasília for the insurrection: Bolsonoro flew to Florida shortly before Lula was sworn in and was admitted to a U.S. hospital on Monday, according to his wife; Lula, who blamed his predecessor for inciting the violence, was in São Paulo.

    As Bloomberg reported Monday:

    Lula held a meeting with the heads of the Supreme Court, Congress, and several of his Cabinet members at a presidential palace left in shambles.

    “We’re united to ensure that institutional measures are taken in accordance with the law,” they wrote in a joint statement after the meeting. “We call on society to remain calm, defending peace and democracy in our country.”

    The Brazilian leader also spoke by phone with U.S. President Joe Biden on Monday.

    “President Biden conveyed the unwavering support of the United States for Brazil’s democracy and for the free will of the Brazilian people as expressed in Brazil’s recent presidential election, which President Lula won,” they said in a joint statement. “President Biden condemned the violence and the attack on democratic institutions and on the peaceful transfer of power.”

    “The two leaders pledged to work closely together on the issues confronting the United States and Brazil, including climate change, economic development, and peace and security,” the statement continued. The U.S. leader invited his counterpart to visit Washington, D.C. early next month “for in-depth consultations on a wide-ranging shared agenda,” and Lula accepted.

    Earlier Monday, Biden had joined with Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to condemn the “attacks on Brazil’s democracy and on the peaceful transfer of power,” express their solidarity with the South American country “as it safeguards its democratic institutions,” and affirm that they “look forward to working with President Lula on delivering for our countries, the Western Hemisphere, and beyond.”

    Although Bolsonaro is reportedly hospitalized with abdominal pain potentially related to an old stab wound, Biden is under mounting pressure—including from U.S. lawmakers—to expel him from the United States. The peace group CodePink has joined that call and highlighted that “Anderson Torres, Bolsonaro’s justice minister who was appointed minister of public security for the capital city Brasília, is also in the United States.”

    “Bolsonaro and Torres should be sent back to Brazil to face justice for their crimes,” the group said. “While Brazil’s elected government and its people are anxious to rebuild a country that was seriously damaged by the unbridled neoliberal policies of the Bolsonaro government, the anti-democratic and violent mobs ignored the sovereign will of the Brazilian people who elected President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva to a new constitutional mandate. CodePink vehemently rejects these threats to the social and political peace of the Brazilian people, and stands firmly with the elected government of President Lula.”

    The Brazilian justice minister explained during a news conference Monday that at this time, there are no legal grounds to investigate Bolsonaro in connection with Sunday’s violence. However, he still placed blame on the far-right leader.

    “Words have power and those words turned into hate, which turned into destruction,” Dino said. “It is a political responsibility because there are political leaders who are responsible for the hate speech and the destruction that we saw yesterday at the buildings of the three branches of powers, aiming at a coup d’état.”

    Other world leaders, including United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, and human rights organizations have also condemned Sunday’s attack and related actions from Bolsonaro and his supporters—which have provoked comparisons to former U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Big Lie” about the 2020 election, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

    “This attack is the culmination of a yearslong campaign by former president Jair Bolsonaro and his allies to undermine democratic principles and spread baseless claims of electoral fraud,” Tamara Taraciuk Broner, acting director of Human Rights Watch’s Americas Division declared Sunday. “The authorities have a responsibility to provide security to Congress, the Supreme Court, and the presidential palace, as well as protect the media and others.”

    “Local authorities failed to take adequate measures to protect key federal buildings, particularly considering previous violent incidents by Bolsonaro supporters, including an attack on the headquarters of the federal police on December 12, the day when electoral authorities officially certified the victory of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in the October presidential elections,” she noted. “Police and the attorney general office need to investigate not just those who committed acts of violence, but those who incited and financed them. Those responsible for this extremely serious attack on Brazil’s democratic institutions should be held accountable.”

    Amnesty International on Sunday also called for probes and prosecutions “in accordance with international human rights standards” and vowed to monitor the federal intervention in public security decreed by Lula in response to the violence.

    The organization noted not only “the attacks and invasion of public buildings,” but also “destruction of documents, violations of the security and physical integrity of journalists covering the events, and of security forces officers attacked by groups of civilians.”

    “Amnesty International demands that the Brazilian state ensure a prompt, impartial, serious, and effective investigation into the circumstances that led to the invasion and attacks,” the group said, “in order to identify, prosecute, judge, and hold accountable all those involved in these incidents, including the instigators, organizers, and financiers, as well as the omissions of state institutions that failed to act to prevent these attacks from taking place.”

    Lula tweeted Monday evening that “it is not possible for a movement to last as long as it did” in front of the military headquarters “if there are no people financing it” and pledged that “we’re going to investigate and we’re going to find out who financed it.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • UN Report Shows Ozone Layer Recovery Effort ‘Sets a Precedent for Climate Action’

    An assessment released Monday by leading science agencies highlights the effectiveness of an international treaty intended to protect the stratospheric ozone layer as well as the power of taking action now to limit global heating driven by human activity.

    The
    Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer was signed in 1987 and entered into force in 1989. The landmark treaty regulates nearly 100 synthetic chemicals known as ozone-depleting substances (ODSs)—including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in air conditioners and refrigerators.

    “The impact the Montreal Protocol has had on climate change mitigation cannot be overstressed.”

    The new analysis of the Montreal Protocol was conducted by experts from the European Commission, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and World Meteorological Organization (WMO) as well as the United States’ National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    The assessment’s executive summary
    states that “actions taken under the Montreal Protocol continue to contribute to ozone recovery” and total column ozone (TCO) “is expected to return to 1980 values around 2066 in the Antarctic, around 2045 in the Arctic, and around 2040 for the near-global average.”

    The publication also points out how efforts to protect and restore the ozone layer contribute to the 2015 Paris climate agreement’s goal of keeping global heating this century “well below” 2°C, relative to preindustrial levels, with an ultimate target of 1.5°C.

    “Compliance with the 2016 Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which requires phasedown of production and consumption of some hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), is estimated to avoid 0.3-0.5°C of warming by 2100,” the document notes.

    “New studies support previous assessments in that the decline in ODS emissions due to compliance with the Montreal Protocol avoids global warming of approximately 0.5-1°C by mid-century compared to an extreme scenario with an uncontrolled increase in ODSs of 3-3.5% per year,” the executive summary adds.

    Meg Seki, executive secretary of the UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat, said in a statement: “That ozone recovery is on track according to the latest quadrennial report is fantastic news. The impact the Montreal Protocol has had on climate change mitigation cannot be overstressed.”

    “Over the last 35 years, the protocol has become a true champion for the environment,” Seki continued. “The assessments and reviews undertaken by the scientific assessment panel remain a vital component of the work of the protocol that helps inform policy- and decision-makers.”

    This is the panel’s first assessment to examine a proposed geoengineering method to reduce global heating known as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), which would involve planes releasing sulfur to reflect solar radiation.

    The analysis warns that “an unintended consequence of SAI is that it could also affect stratospheric temperatures, circulation, and ozone production and destruction rates and transport.”

    NOAA’s David Fahey, a lead author of the assessment, told The Guardian that “these sort of climate interventions are touchy subjects because they are a tangled ball of ethics and governance, rather than just science… There would indeed, though, be consequences for ozone if you put enough sulfur into the atmosphere. It would be unavoidable.”

    Released in the wake of COP27—a November U.N. summit that critics
    called “another terrible failure” because Paris agreement parties failed to collectively call for an end to all planet-heating fossil fuels—the new assessment prompted experts to urge the world to learn from the Montreal Protocol and apply those lessons tackling the climate emergency.

    Fahey said that the global response to CFCs means that the Montreal Protocol should be seen as “the most successful environmental treaty in history and offers encouragement that countries of the world can come together and decide an outcome and act on it.”

    According to
    The Guardian:

    Fahey said that even with swift global action on CFCs, the chemicals still linger in the atmosphere for about a century. “It’s a bit like waiting for paint to dry, you just have to wait for nature to do its thing and flush out these chemicals,” he said.

    The challenge when it comes to greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide is even greater, he said, as they stay in the atmosphere far longer and, unlike CFCs which were produced by just a handful of companies, the emissions coming from fossil fuels are far more widespread and embedded in almost every activity in societies.

    “CO2 is another order of magnitude when it comes to its longevity, which is sobering,” he said. “Getting every person on the planet to stop burning fossil fuels is a vastly different challenge.”

    Still, WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas declared that “ozone action sets a precedent for climate action.”

    “Our success in phasing out ozone-eating chemicals,” he said, “shows us what can and must be done—as a matter of urgency—to transition away from fossil fuels, reduce greenhouse gases, and so limit temperature increase.”

  • Jan. 6 Rally Reminds Public That ‘Trump Is Disqualified’ From Running for Office



    Two years after supporters of former President Donald Trump’s “Big Lie” stormed the U.S. Capitol, demonstrators gathered in Colorado on Friday to remind the American people—especially election officials—that “Trump is disqualified” from running for public office under Section 3 of the 14 Amendment to the Constitution.

    Since January 6, 2021, some elected officials and advocacy groups have drawn attention to that section of the amendment, which bars from office anyone who has taken an oath to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion,” to call for excluding Trump and some congressional Republicans from government.

    “Trump’s actions were a violation of his oath of office and therefore make him constitutionally ineligible for any future run for office.”

    “Insurrectionists do not belong in office,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said Friday. “And they do not belong on the ballot going forward. Elected officials who directly aided and abetted the deadly assault on our nation’s democracy on January 6 must be held accountable.”

    The groups Free Speech for People (FSFP) and Mi Familia Vota Education Fund have launched TrumpIsDisqualified.org, a campaign pressuring secretaries of state and other U.S. election officials to exclude supporters of the insurrection—particularly the twice-impeached former president—from any future ballots.

    As part of the “Jan. 6th Justice: Our Freedoms, Our Votes” day of action on Friday, Mi Familia Vota held a rally in Denver demanding that Democratic Colorado Secretary of State Jenna Griswold use her power to keep Trump—who formally launched his current presidential campaign in November—off the ballot in 2024.

    “Donald Trump violated his oath of office when he led the charge to overturn the results of the 2020 election,” declared Héctor Sánchez Barba, executive director and CEO of Mi Familia Vota, a national group that works to build Latino political power through civic participation.

    “His actions only confirmed what the Latino community has long known: He is dangerous,” Sanchez said of Trump. “The disqualification clause in the 14th Amendment is clear: Anyone who violates their oath of office is ineligible to run for higher office in the future.”

    “Secretaries of state have the power to bar Trump,” he stressed. “There is ample evidence as to why he is not fit to hold office again, now all we are asking is for a secretary of state to act.”

    Ahead of the “divided and disoriented” GOP’s disastrous takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives this week, the Democratic-led select committee that investigated the Capitol insurrection last month unanimously referred Trump to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on four criminal charges.

    “The bipartisan House January 6th committee showed that Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election, culminating with his incitement of violent insurrection,” FSFP campaign director Alexandra Flores-Quilty said Friday.

    “The insurrectionist disqualification clause is clear: Trump’s actions were a violation of his oath of office and therefore make him constitutionally ineligible for any future run for office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” she added. “Secretaries of state now have a duty to uphold the Constitution and protect our democracy by ensuring Trump is barred from the ballot.”

    Even before the House select committee referrals, Trump faced DOJ investigations into his handling of classified documents and his role in the 2021 attack on the Capitol. After Trump announced his 2024 campaign, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith, a longtime federal prosecutor, as a special counsel for those probes.

    FSFP legal director Ron Fein, president John Bonifaz, and chairman and senior legal adviser Ben Clements, jointly argued Friday in a piece for Jurist that “Garland has done something quietly sneaky” with his appointment of Smith.

    “By announcing a special counsel appointment predicated on Trump’s candidacy,” the trio wrote, “then excluding from the special counsel’s scope the ‘shelf-ready’ ‘obstruction of justice crimes already identified by Special Counsel [Robert] Mueller and campaign finance crimes already identified by Manhattan prosecutors (in the Trump administration, no less), Garland is telling us between the lines that that he is giving up on all of Trump’s pre-2020 crimes.”

    “Of course, Trump must be held accountable, in a timely fashion, for the crimes within the special counsel’s scope,” they added. “But Garland’s absolution of Trump’s earlier crimes—and unwillingness to even state openly, let alone provide a rationale, that he was doing so—is a serious blow to the once cherished principle that no one, not even the president, is above the law.”

    As for other political leaders who contributed to the Capitol attack, although the select committee last month referred Republican Congressmen Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), and Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to the House Committee on Ethics for defying subpoenas, they are unlikely to face any consequences in a chamber narrowly controlled by the GOP, no matter who ultimately becomes speaker.

    The House adjourned Friday afternoon after 13 failed speaker votes throughout the week—the most since before the U.S. Civil War—with plans to return at 10:00 pm ET. McCarthy just needs to flip two of the six Republicans who remain opposed to him—Biggs along with Reps. Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Eli Crane (Ariz.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Bob Good (Va.), and Matt Rosendale (Mont.)—to secure enough support to be elected to the leadership post.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • EPA Rule to Curb Deadly Air Pollution Fails Communities at Risk, Groups Warn



    While welcoming efforts to update U.S. air quality standards for soot, environmental and public health advocates on Friday warned that the Biden administration’s new proposal falls woefully short of what’s needed to protect vulnerable communities from deadly pollution.

    Because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declined to make any changes during the industry-friendly Trump administration, the United States currently relies on 2012 standards for soot, or fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from sources such as construction sites, fires, power plants, and vehicles.

    “EPA is not living up to the ambitions of this administration to follow the science, protect public health, and advance environmental justice.”

    The EPA is now proposing to strengthen the primary annual PM2.5 standard—which is about public health—from 12 micrograms per cubic meter to 9-10 micrograms per cubic meter, but over a two-month period the agency will take public comment on a range of 8-11 micrograms per cubic meter.

    The rule would not alter the secondary annual PM2.5 standard, which is meant to protect public welfare, including animals, crops, and nature. It also would retain existing primary and secondary standards for both PM2.5 over a 24-hour period and larger inhalable particles known as PM10.

    The agency estimates the new standard would prevent up to 4,200 premature deaths and 270,000 lost workdays each year while resulting in as much as $43 billion in net health benefits in 2032. EPA Administrator Michael Regan claimed that “our work to deliver clean, breathable air for everyone is a top priority” and framed the proposal as “grounded in the best available science.”

    However, campaigners and representatives from overburdened communities argued Friday that the EPA should listen to pleas for cleaner air from people at risk—rather than business groups fearmongering about potential economic impacts—and impose even stricter standards, which could reduce health issues like asthma and heart attacks and save thousands more lives annually.

    “This delayed proposed rule on soot is a disappointment and missed opportunity overall. Though aspects of EPA’s proposal would somewhat strengthen important public health protections, EPA is not living up to the ambitions of this administration to follow the science, protect public health, and advance environmental justice,” said Earthjustice attorney Seth Johnson.

    Sierra Club senior director of energy campaigns Holly Bender agreed that the rule “does not fully reflect the serious danger of this pollutant, the scientific record, or the positive impact stronger standards would have on communities across the country.”

    “The health burdens of air pollution are disproportionately borne by communities of color near heavily polluting facilities and infrastructure, like power plants, factories, and roads, and this standard is a long-overdue step toward correcting enduring environmental and health injustices faced by fenceline communities,” she stressed. “Anything short of the most protective standards gives a pass to the biggest polluters.”

    Northeast Ohio Black Health Coalition executive director Yvonka Hall also lamented that “with the new soot rule proposal, the EPA and the Biden administration have missed a vital opportunity to enact transformational change, to advance environmental justice, and to protect the most vulnerable Americans.”

    “Thanks to redlining, Black people are more likely to live, work, play, and pray in communities that are toxic,” Hall pointed out. “With this proposal, we have missed the chance to right some of those historical wrongs.”

    Noting that “Black children go to the emergency room for asthma 10 times more often than their white counterparts in the city of St. Louis” and “it’s eight times more often for Black adults,” Jenn DeRose, a Missouri-based Sierra Club campaigner, emphasized that “we need strong reductions in particulate matter pollution in my city and across the country to address problems created by generations of environmental racism targeted at Black communities.”

    Latinos are also “far more likely to live and work in areas where air quality is the poorest, and regularly breathe soot and smog, which can cause and exacerbate respiratory illness,” said Laura Esquivel, the Hispanic Federation’s vice president of federal policy and advocacy. “This rule falls short of taking steps to mitigate the decades of neglect and harm done to the health of our communities and to the health of Latino children in particular.”

    Echoing the campaigners, Anita Desikan, a senior analyst for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union on Concerned Scientists, said that “the science is clear—PM pollution causes serious health problems, and the biggest impacts are hitting Black, Latinx, and low-income people, many of whom are already overburdened with exposure to multiple pollutants.”

    “Over the past decade, study after study has shown how breathing PM pollution causes real, meaningful damage,” Desikan continued. “Today’s proposal gets us closer to where we need to be—but the problem is urgent and the solution is long overdue. EPA needs to act quickly, follow the science, and finalize the strongest possible rule.”

    While Dr. Doris Browne, former president of the National Medical Association, the largest U.S. organization representing Black physicians, expressed gratitude for the Biden administration’s efforts in the official EPA statement announcing the proposal, other public health leaders were far more critical.

    American Lung Association president and CEO Harold Wimmer said that the proposed rule “misses the mark and is inadequate to protect public health from this deadly pollutant,” citing scientific research to advocate for an annual standard of 8 micrograms per cubic meter and a 24-hour standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter.

    Declaring that “health organizations and experts are united in their ask of EPA to finalize the national standards for particle pollution” at those levels, Wimmer pledged that his group “will file detailed technical comments and provide testimony at the public hearing to urge EPA to strengthen the final standards,” and encouraged the public to do the same.

    Air Alliance Houston executive director Jennifer Hadayia highlighted that “during the recent cold snap, we were exposed to 24-hour industrial flares that spewed particulate matter across the region. And, our state regulatory agency—the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality—does nothing to stop it.”

    “We applaud the EPA for stepping in where our state will not, but we wish they had gone further,” said Hadayia. “A stronger 24-hour standard would protect more Houstonians from the recent flares.”

    Critics of the proposal also want the EPA to reconsider not just the primary, or health-based, standards, but also the secondary, or welfare-based, ones.

    “Because countless people and organizations like the National Parks Conservation Association spoke out and demanded the Biden administration take action, they’ve taken this modest step toward cleaner air, but it doesn’t go far enough,” said Ulla Reeves, campaigns director for the organization’s Clean Air Program.

    “Beyond the harm it causes people, soot wreaks havoc on our national parks’ plants, wildlife, waters, and our views,” Reeves said. “People deserve to visit national parks and not only breathe clean air but also experience the natural world free from this haze and soot pollution.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • South Carolina Supreme Court Permanently Blocks State’s Abortion Ban

    Reproductive rights supporters in South Carolina and across the country celebrated Thursday once the state Supreme Court permanently struck down a law banning abortion after around six weeks, or before many people even know they are pregnant. Senate Bill 1 had been blocked in the federal court system — until June, when the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • US House Adjourns—Again—After 11 Failed Votes to Select a Speaker



    For the first time since before the U.S. Civil War, the House of Representatives on Thursday surpassed 10 rounds of voting for speaker and the narrow GOP majority still failed to rally behind one candidate, ultimately voting to adjourn until Friday afternoon.

    Since Tuesday, over 11 rounds, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has seen his numbers drop from a high of 203 to 200 in the latest round, with 12 Republicans backing Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), seven supporting Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), one pushing for former President Donald Trump, and one voting present.

    During every round of voting this week, all 212 Democrats have maintained their support for Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.).

    The last time lawmakers needed multiple rounds of voting to choose a speaker was a century ago, when it took nine attempts. Before that, they held 44 votes in 1859 and a historic 133 votes in 1855—a process that spanned nearly two months.

    While both allies and opponents of McCarthy signaled to reporters on Capitol Hill Thursday that negotiations for a potential deal to get him into the post are ongoing, it’s not clear enough of the 20 far-right members who have blocked his path to speaker have or even can be swayed.

    Democrats have pointed to the drama of the past three days—on the eve of the second anniversary of Trump supporters’ deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol—as proof that the GOP control of the House over the next two years will be marred by dysfunction.

    “If you think House Republicans’ chaos will end with electing a speaker, you aren’t paying attention,” Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said Thursday night. “This is who they are. Chaotic, selfish, and incapable of leadership.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Biden Signs Bill to End Profiteering From Prisoners’ Calls to Loved Ones



    Justice campaigners celebrated Thursday after U.S. President Joe Biden signed a bill empowering federal regulators to ensure that charges for video and audio calls from correctional and detention facilities are “just and reasonable.”

    Named for a late nurse who fought for lower rates after struggling to afford phone calls with her incarcerated grandson, the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act of 2022 was sent to Biden’s desk last month.

    The measure, led by U.S. Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “to ensure just and reasonable charges.”

    “Words could never express or begin to explain the incredible magnitude of power and support in this bill,” said Wright-Reed’s grandson Ulandis Forte, who is no longer incarcerated, after Congress passed the legislation. “A multitude of family and friends will be positively impacted by the passing of this bill and the journey to get there.”

    “Many will never understand the sleepless nights and ongoing struggle it has taken to bring this wonderful day to fruition,” Forte added. “To God be the glory, and I’m so grateful for a moment in history that will never be forgotten.”

    As The Associated Press detailed Thursday:

    The FCC must still go through the rule-making process before the changes can be officially made. In 2013, FCC capped rates at 25 cents per minute, which meant a 15-minute call cost $3.75; before that, it was roughly $17 on average, about 10 times more than the average per-minute rate. Prison telecommunication companies challenged the decision in court, claiming the FCC didn’t have the right to regulate the calls.

    In 2015, then-FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn told lawmakers she supported measures to cap the costs. “Incarceration is a family matter, an economic matter, a societal matter. The greatest impact of an inmate’s sentence is often on the loved ones who are left behind,” she said.

    Today, “Kentucky has the highest cost for a 15-minute call, at $5.70, and $9.99 for a cellphone call,” according to the AP.

    “It’s unacceptable for anyone to have to choose between necessities like rent or healthcare and connecting with their loved ones,” Jesselyn McCurdy at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights said in December, declaring that the legislation’s passage “will correct this injustice and be life-changing for incarcerated individuals and their families.”

    Along with celebrating what the measure will mean to those struggling to pay for reaching their loved ones, campaigners have continued to condemn what Cheryl A. Leanza, policy adviser of the United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry, called “the predatory behavior of companies serving incarcerated people and their families.”

    Sakira Cook, vice president of policy and government at Color of Change, pointed out that “prison telecommunications services profit from vulnerable families trying to stay in touch with their loved ones, generating $1.4 billion annually.”

    “Incarcerated people and their loved ones have paid the price, literally, for the predatory behavior by the correctional telecom industry for far too long,” said Heather Franklin, internet campaign director at Free Press Action. “The ability for incarcerated people to maintain regular communication with their loved ones, counsel, and clergy is a human rights issue.”

    Worth Rises executive director Bianca Tylek agreed that “the predatory correctional telecom industry has avoided regulation for too long, and families have paid the exorbitant price.”

    “This legislation will bring extraordinary relief to families with incarcerated loved ones—parents and children especially—who need to stay connected,” Tylek added. “Those connections are important to the strength of families, well-being of people inside, and their mutual success upon reentry. Their success benefits us all.”

    Charles Sullivan, president of International CURE, noted that the legislation is also “essential to preparing for jobs and housing when a person is released.”

    Duckworth made similar points after the bill was sent to Biden, saying that “we must do all that we can to ensure that phone rates in correctional facilities are just and reasonable so family members can afford to stay in touch with incarcerated loved ones, improving the chances that rehabilitated offenders will be able to become productive members of society upon their release.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • ‘Keep Hypocrisy to Yourself,’ Says Ukraine Official After Putin Orders Christmas Truce



    Under pressure from a key religious leader, Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday announced a 36-hour cease-fire for the war on Ukraine launched last February—a move swiftly criticized by an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

    Putin’s decision came after the head of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) said that “I, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill, call on all parties involved in the internecine conflict to establish a Christmas cease-fire from 12:00 pm Moscow time on January 6 to 12:00 am on January 7 so that Orthodox people could attend church services on Christmas Eve and on Christmas Day.”

    The Russian president said in a statement that “taking into account the appeal of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, I instruct the minister of defense of the Russian Federation to introduce from 12:00 January 6, 2023 until 24:00 January 7, 2023, a cease-fire along the entire line of contact between the parties in Ukraine.”

    “Based on the fact that a large number of citizens professing Orthodoxy live in the combat areas,” Putin continued, “we call on the Ukrainian side to declare a cease-fire and give them the opportunity to attend services on Christmas Eve, as well as on the Day of the Nativity of Christ.”

    As Bloomberg reported:

    For Putin, the offer is “a play at generosity for the public,” Tatiana Stanovaya, founder of R.Politik political consultant, wrote in Telegram. She noted that after Ukrainian missile strikes on January 1 killed scores of Russian troops in occupied territory, “he certainly doesn’t want something like that to happen on Christmas.”

    Russia’s Ministry of Defense said Monday that Ukrainian rockets killed 63 soldiers in Russian-occupied Donetsk. The ministry also confirmed Thursday that troops have been instructed to observe the temporary cease-fire ordered by Putin.

    Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, responded to the developments Thursday by blasting both the ROC—known for its leader’s close relationship with the Kremlin—and the Russian Federation (RF) cease-fire.

    “ROC is not an authority for global Orthodoxy and acts as a ‘war propagandist,’” Podolyak tweeted. “ROC called for the genocide of Ukrainians, incited mass murder, and insists on even greater militarization of RF. Thus, ROC’s statement about [a] ‘Christmas truce’ is a cynical trap and an element of propaganda.”

    After the Kremlin’s decision, Podolyak added: “First. Ukraine doesn’t attack foreign territory and doesn’t kill civilians. As RF does. Ukraine destroys only members of the occupation army on its territory… Second. RF must leave the occupied territories—only then will it have a ‘temporary truce.’ Keep hypocrisy to yourself.”

    Ukrainian citizens and soldiers who spoke with CNN expressed skepticism that Putin’s directive will actually halt fighting.

    “They shell us every day, people die in Kherson every day. And this temporary measure won’t change anything,” Pavlo Skotarenko, a resident of the Ukrainian region where at least four people were killed Thursday, told the network by phone. “Their soldiers here on the ground will continue to fire mortars. The provocations will happen for sure.”

    From the beginning of the invasion through Monday, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights “recorded 17,994 civilian casualties in Ukraine: 6,919 killed and 11,075 injured.” However, the office “believes that the actual figures are considerably higher.”

    Skotarenko said that “the only positive thing from this possible cease-fire is that our guys may have a day or two for rest and reset.”

    Russia’s planned cease-fire did not seem to signal a step toward ending the war. The Kremlin said in a statement that during a Thursday phone call, Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan “discussed the situation around Ukraine. Russia laid an emphasis on the destructive role of Western countries who have been pumping the Kyiv regime with weapons and military hardware as well as providing it with operational information and assigning targets to it.”

    In response to Erdogan’s willingness to mediate, the Kremlin added that “Putin reiterated that Russia is open to a serious dialogue, given authorities in Kyiv meet demands that have been repeatedly put forward, with due account taken of the new territorial realities,” a reference to regions of Ukraine occupied by Russia.

    Zelenskyy also spoke with Erdogan on Thursday. The Ukrainian president said that the two leaders “discussed security cooperation of our countries, nuclear safety issues, in particular the situation at [Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant]. There should be no invaders there. We also talked about the exchange of prisoners of war with Turkish mediation [and] the development of the grain agreement. We appreciate Turkey’s willingness to take part in the implementation of our peace formula.”

    The developments Thursday came after over 1,000 faith leaders in the United States—including Bishop William J. Barber II, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Dr. Cornel West, Rev. Liz Theoharis, Rabbi Arthur Waskow, and Sikh leader Valarie Kaur—signed a statement calling for Christmas truce inspired by World War I, shortly before the holiday celebrated by many around the world on December 25.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • GOP House Speaker Drama Sparks Fears About Debt Ceiling Fight



    The refusal by U.S. House Republicans to collectively get behind a speaker candidate in six rounds of voting so far this week has renewed concerns about the coming fight over raising the debt ceiling to prevent an unprecedented government default.

    After the GOP won a narrow House majority in the November midterm elections, economists and progressives in Congress called for raising the federal borrowing limit during the lame-duck session. However, Democrats failed to pass standalone legislation or include a provision in the omnibus package President Joe Biden signed last week, setting up the battle for this year.

    The arbitrary cap was last increased by $2.5 trillion to $31.381 trillion in December 2021 and is expected to be reached no sooner than the summer. Although that means lawmakers likely have months to act, some Republicans have signaled that they intend to use the threat of a potential default—which could cause a global economic crisis—to force concessions.

    Specifically, GOP lawmakers have set their sights on cuts to Medicare and Social Security. While Biden vowed in November that “under no circumstances” would he go along with GOP attacks on such programs, the political theater in the House on Tuesday and Wednesday has fueled fears that some Republicans would be willing to force the first-ever default.

    The House adjourned Wednesday afternoon until 8:00 pm ET, after a trio of votes in which far-right House Republicans repeatedly denied Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) the speakership—events that followed three similar voting rounds on Tuesday. Members briefly returned to the chamber as planned Wednesday night and narrowly voted to adjourn until noon on Thursday. The chamber can’t move forward with any legislative business until the leadership position is filled.

    “The 20 opposed to McCarthy want all-out war against Democrats and Biden,” Institute for Policy Studies fellow Sanho Tree said of the Republicans blocking his path to speaker. “They think that by taking the debt ceiling hostage this year, the House can force the Senate and [White House] to agree to slashing spending, a border wall, and cuts to Medicare and Social Security.”

    Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) suggested to Punchbowl News‘ Brendan Pedersen that the speaker fight doesn’t “necessarily portend a problem with the debt limit,” adding that “I think there will be a way forward,” but some Democrats aren’t convinced.

    “If House Republicans can’t even get it together to choose their leader, they can’t be trusted with the debt ceiling, fighting inflation, or helping families make ends meet,” Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) tweeted Wednesday evening. “They’ve proven they can’t lead.”

    One of the House Freedom Caucus members who has repeatedly voted against McCarthy for speaker, Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), discussed the debt limit with journalists on Wednesday, reportedly saying: “Is he willing to shut the government down rather than raise the debt ceiling? That’s a non-negotiable item.”

    According to The Intercept‘s Ryan Grim:

    A reporter asked Norman if he meant default on the debt, as the debt ceiling and a government shutdown are not directly linked. “That’s why you need to be planning now what agencies—what path you’re gonna take now to trim government. Tell the programs you’re going to get to this number. And you do that before chairs are picked,” he said, referring to the process of choosing and installing House committee chairs.

    A quirk of parliamentary procedure requires Congress to authorize spending, then appropriate money for those authorized expenditures, and then to authorize the Treasury Department to issue debt in order to pay for that appropriated money. Some constitutional scholars argue that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional, but currently both parties recognize it as a legal and valid restriction on the government’s ability to issue debt.

    Appearing on a Bloomberg Radio program Wednesday, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) floated the possibility of trading Democratic voters in favor of McCarthy for a debt limit deal.

    “Eventually, he’s going to have to cut a deal with Democrats, because it’s going to be easier to get a deal with us than with his 20-headed monster he has over there,” Sherman said. “He’s going to have to agree with Democrats to not hold hostage the full faith and credit of the United States, to not put us in a position where we’re going to shut down the government. And eventually, I think Americans will benefit from this ugly picture of chaos.”

    The New York Daily News reported Wednesday that though Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) “emphatically ruled out supporting embattled” McCarthy, the progressive congresswoman suggested to journalists that there was potential for a compromise speaker who agreed to raise the debt ceiling along with “a combination of” other concessions.

    Meanwhile, some critics of the Republican Party used the ongoing speakership drama to remind Americans that no matter who ultimately ends up at the helm, “they all want to cut your Social Security” and protect wealthy tax dodgers.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • ‘Congress Must Stop Funding Apartheid,’ Tlaib Says as Israel Razes West Bank Homes



    As chaos continued in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday, the first Palestinian-American woman ever elected to the chamber took aim at Israel’s new far-right government for its plans to forcibly displace over 1,000 Palestinians in the Masafer Yatta region of the illegally occupied West Bank.

    After noting that “2022 was one of the deadliest years for Palestinians on record,” U.S. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)—an outspoken critic of violence by Israeli forces and settlers, and the United States’ military aid to Israel—declared that “Congress must stop funding apartheid.”

    “Not even one week into 2023, the new far-right apartheid government is moving to ethnically cleanse entire communities—which would displace more than 1,000 Palestinian residents, including 500 children,” Tlaib tweeted. “All with American backing, bulldozers, and bullets.”

    The congresswoman also shared a tweet from the U.S.-based group Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), which pointed to video footage of Israeli occupation forces destroying homes and other infrastructure in Masafer Yatta.

    In a statement Wednesday, JVP managing director Tallie Ben-Daniel also called out Israel’s most far-right government in history—Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud party was again sworn in as prime minister last week after forming a controversial coalition with right-wing parties—for escalating the forced expulsion of Palestinians from Masafer Yatta.

    “The horrifying actions of this new government, only five days in, prove exactly what Palestinians have been saying all along: Israel is an apartheid state, where Palestinians are treated as inferior,” said Ben-Daniel. “The dangerous escalations by the new Israeli government make clear that now is the time for action. All Jewish people who believe in justice should support Palestinians’ calls for freedom and speak up against this far-right, extremist new government.”

    JVP political director Beth Miller put pressure on U.S. President Joe Biden, who said last week that “I look forward to working with Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has been my friend for decades,” while also claiming that “the United States will continue to support the two-state solution and to oppose policies that endanger its viability or contradict our mutual interests and values.”

    Miller argued that “the Biden administration has enabled and paved the way for this extremist Israeli government by ensuring total impunity for Israel’s actions and actively fighting against any attempts to hold the Israeli government accountable for its human rights violations. Claims by the administration to ‘oppose’ escalatory policies are empty without concrete action to end U.S. complicity in Israeli apartheid.”

    Al Jazeera reported Wednesday that human rights groups and residents of Masafer Yatta said the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) “has informed Palestinian officials of their imminent plans to forcibly displace more than 1,000 Palestinian residents,” which was approved last May by the Israeli High Court of Justice, despite charges of “ethnic cleansing” from critics worldwide.

    According to the report:

    “They may come without notice—they may isolate each village and displace them one by one, or they may carry out mass displacement at once. We don’t know,” Nidal Younis, head of the Masafer Yatta Village Council, told Al Jazeera.

    “In the last period, especially after the court decision, they paralyzed the movement of people in this area,” continued Younis. “There are villages with checkpoints at their entrances, and only residents of the area are allowed to enter and exit,” he added, noting that the army has held up residents for up to 12 hours in the past.”

    The forcible transfer of protected residents—defined by the Geneva Convention as “civilians who find themselves in the hands of a party to the conflict of which they are not nationals” in occupied territory is classified as a war crime under international law.

    The Israeli human rights group B’Tselem also made that point in a statement Monday, noting Israeli plans to expel Palestinians from their lands and homes to an “alternate location.”

    “Forcible transfer of protected persons in occupied territory is a war crime,” said B’Tselem. “Therefore, the Israeli ‘offer’ of an alternative is meaningless. It is a violent threat that leaves the residents with no choice.”

    In a clear display of international disapproval of the Israeli occupation, the day after Netanyahu took the oath of office last week, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution asking the International Court of Justice to issue an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s ongoing “occupation, settlement, and annexation” of Palestinian territories.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • False Match That Led to Arrest Highlights Danger of Facial Recognition



    Instead of enjoying a late Thanksgiving meal with his mother in Georgia, Randal Reid spent nearly a week in jail in November after he was falsely identified as a luxury purse thief by Louisiana authorities using facial recognition technology.

    That’s according to Monday reporting by NOLA.com, which caught the attention of Fight for the Future, a digital rights group that has long advocated against law enforcement and private entities using such technology, partly because of its shortcomings and the risk of outcomes like this.

    “So much wrong here,” Fight for the Future said Tuesday, sharing the story on Twitter. The group highlighted that many cops can use facial recognition systems without publicly disclosing it, and anyone’s “life can be upended because of a machine’s mistake.”

    Reid—a 28-year-old Black man misidentified as one of three people who allegedly stole over $10,000 in Chanel and Louis Vuitton purses from a pair of shops via bogus credit card purchases—was pulled over by local police in Georgia’s Dekalb County on November 25, while he was driving on Interstate 20 to meet up with his mother, NOLA.com reported.

    “They told me I had a warrant out of Jefferson Parish. I said, ‘What is Jefferson Parish?,’” Reid recalled. “I have never been to Louisiana a day in my life. Then they told me it was for theft. So not only have I not been to Louisiana, I also don’t steal.”

    Reid wasn’t released from the Dekalb County jail until December 1. While behind bars, he worried about losing his job as a transportation analyst and being convicted of felonies that he did not commit.

    “Not eating, not sleeping. I’m thinking about these charges. Not doing anything because I don’t know what’s really going on the whole time,” he said. “They didn’t even try to make the right ID.”

    Tommy Calogero, Reid’s lawyer, told NOLA.com that Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office detectives “tacitly” admitted the misidentification and rescinded a July warrant. The news outlet noted that court records show a Baton Rouge Police Department detective “adopted JPSO’s identification of Reid to secure an arrest warrant” for one of the thefts.

    According to the report:

    Sheriff Joe Lopinto’s office did not respond to several requests for information on Reid’s arrest and release, the agency’s use of facial recognition, or any safeguards around it. That office also denied a formal request for the July 18 arrest warrant for Reid and copies of policies or purchases related to facial recognition, citing an ongoing investigation.

    Baton Rouge police also did not respond to questions about its warrant for Reid’s arrest. The warrant, signed by 19th Judicial District Judge Eboni Rose, does not say how Lopinto’s office identified Reid.

    As Fight for the Future summarized: “Police blindly trusted a facial recognition scan to arrest a man in Georgia. He was wrongly imprisoned for a WEEK. Now (surprise, surprise) the cops are stonewalling the press about their failure.”

    Experts from the ACLU of Louisana and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) shared concerns with NOLA.com about police use of the technology—which, as research has shown, more frequently misidentifies people of color.

    In response to reporting on Reid’s experience, the national ACLU on Tuesday stressed the flaws of facial recognition tools and asserted that “law enforcement must drop this dangerous technology—we shouldn’t have to worry about being falsely arrested because an algorithm gets it wrong.”

    The national ACLU has previously called on policymakers to end law enforcement use of facial recognition technology across the United States—including after the January 2020 wrongful arrest of Robert Williams, a Black man in Michigan misidentified as a shoplifting suspect.

    “My daughters can’t unsee me being handcuffed and put into a police car. But they can see me use this experience to bring some good into the world,” Williams wrote in a June 2020 opinion piece. “I keep thinking about how lucky I was to have spent only one night in jail—as traumatizing as it was. Many Black people won’t be so lucky. My family and I don’t want to live with that fear. I don’t want anyone to live with that fear.”

    Even before Williams’ arrest, Fight for the Future and partners groups launched a “Ban Facial Recognition” campaign, which has tracked restrictions and known uses of the technology as well as enabled constituents to pressure lawmakers to ban it. Despite some progress in restricting or banning law enforcement’s use of such tools at the local and state levels, the United States still lacks federal law on the topic.

    “Like nuclear or biological weapons, facial recognition poses a threat to human society and basic liberty that far outweighs any potential benefits,” the campaign’s website argues. “Silicon Valley lobbyists are disingenuously calling for light ‘regulation’ of facial recognition so they can continue to profit by rapidly spreading this surveillance dragnet. They’re trying to avoid the real debate: whether technology this dangerous should even exist.”

    According to the campaign, “Industry-friendly and government-friendly oversight will not fix the dangers inherent in law enforcement’s use of facial recognition: We need an all-out ban.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • House GOP Wants to Eliminate the Congressional Workers Union

    Labor organizers on Capitol Hill were undeterred Monday despite U.S. House Republicans’ plans to try to undo progress made last year after Democrats passed a resolution enabling congressional staffers to form unions. In preparation for taking narrow control of the lower chamber on Tuesday, the GOP on Sunday unveiled its rules package, which states the party’s intention to “eliminate Democrats’…

    Source

  • ‘This Must Be Stopped’: House Republicans Plan to Gut Ethics Office



    Government watchdog groups on Monday blasted plans by U.S. House Republicans to gut an independent, nonpartisan ethics office that was established 15 years ago to review allegations of misconduct against members of the chamber and their staffers.

    The GOP is set to have a narrow House majority once new members are sworn in on Tuesday. The party’s proposed changes to the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) were among various controversial policies included in the rules package for the 118th Congress that was unveiled late Sunday.

    As Politico‘s Nicholas Wu summarized on Twitter, the Republican proposals “would effectively sack most of the Democratic-appointed board members by instituting term limits and make it much harder to hire staff.”

    Wu was among the political observers and ethics experts who pointed out that the changes would likely make it harder to investigate U.S. Rep.-elect George Santos (R-N.Y.), who was caught lying about his education, employment history, and religious background.

    Although Democrats have called for Santos to step aside over his campaign trail lies and the Republican Nassau County district attorney has launched an investigation into him, the incoming congressman is still expected to take office on Tuesday.

    Kyle Herrig, president of the group Accountable.US, noted in a statement that the move could help not only Santos but also members such as Republican Congressman Jim Jordan (Ohio), who—along with GOP Rep. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), and Scott Perry (Texas)—was referred to the House Committee on Ethics for ignoring a subpoena from the select committee investigating the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    “It’s telling that one of the very first actions of the incoming MAGA Republican-led House will be to kneecap a bipartisan office that oversees congressional ethics,” said Herrig. “This is about protecting their ethically challenged members like fraudster George Santos or January 6 subpoena-defying Jim Jordan from accountability—or perhaps in anticipation of a new wave of corruption allegations and ethics violations from other MAGA extremists.”

    “There is certainly no good reason to make it easier for members to get away with ethics violations, which only invites bad behavior,” he added. “It sends a clear message that the MAGA House is more interested in sweeping any corruption amongst their ranks under the rug and performing political stunts against the Biden administration than they are doing anything constructive on behalf of the American people.”


    Public Citizen government affairs lobbyist Craig Holman highlighted in a statement that “OCE is a bipartisan ethics office that helps monitor and report on ethics issues involving members of Congress, and frequently makes its recommendations to the House Ethics Committee on a unanimous vote. It has a proven track record of enhancing transparency and enforcement of ethics rules and has gained widespread support among the American public.”

    “These are measures that will render the ethics office ineffectual and which no member, from either party, should support,” Holman said of the GOP’s proposed changes. “Today’s Republican Party is rife with ethical transgressions. And it is now trying to make it much harder to hold members of Congress accountable to the standards of decency we expect.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • ‘Union-Busting on Day 1’: House GOP Aims to Stop Congressional Staff From Organizing



    Labor organizers on Capitol Hill were undeterred Monday despite U.S. House Republicans’ plans to try to undo progress made last year after Democrats passed a resolution enabling congressional staffers to form unions.

    In preparation for taking narrow control of the lower chamber on Tuesday, the GOP on Sunday unveiled its rules package, which states the party’s intention to “eliminate Democrats’ creation of House staff labor unions so that congressional staff are accountable to the elected officials they serve.”

    The Congressional Workers Union (CWU) fired back Monday, tweeting: “We organized and unionized offices in the 117th Congress, and we’re going not to stop in the 118th Congress. When we fight, we win, and we’re ready to take on any anti-worker battles that may come our way.”

    The office of Rep. Andy Levin (D-Mich.) ratified the first-ever contract negotiated by congressional staff just last month. However, Levin—who introduced the resolution enabling his and other staffers to organize, which passed the House in a May 2022 party-line vote—will not return for the 118th Congress after losing a Democratic primary to Rep. Haley Stevens.

    Democrats, labor leaders, and other critics across the country called the GOP’s plans “shameful” as well as “sad, disgusting, and predictable.”

    Democratic Congressmen-elect Chris Deluzio (Pa.) and Maxwell Alejandro Frost (Fla.) both expressed solidarity with the CWU.

    “Any attempt to deny workers’ rights to organize—perhaps especially on Capitol Hill—is anti-democratic,” said Sara Nelson, international president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO. “We will fight it and stand with the [CWU] all the way.”

    Courtney Rose Laudick, the CWU’s vice president of organizing, asserted that “ALL workers deserve a union. That’s not up for debate.”

    Both Laudick and David Dayen, The American Prospect‘s executive editor, highlighted on Twitter that it’s not clear the House GOP will even be able to put its plan into action.

    There is “some question as to whether the House GOP can even do this,” given that “last year’s House resolution on staff unions just implemented a provision of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995,” Dayen explained, so it is “not certain a rules package can take that away.”

    Levin similarly tweeted Monday that the “GOP may be so reflexively anti-union that they want to strip their employees of the chance to form one—but it’s not that easy. Under the Congressional Accountability Act, rights that have been implemented can’t simply be taken away absent new legislation to change the act itself.”

    Demand Progress policy director Dan Schuman pointed out that the 1995 law was passed under Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.).

    CNN reported Monday that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarty (R-Calif.) “outlined some of the concessions that he has agreed to in his campaign for speaker on a Sunday evening conference call—including making it easier to topple the speaker, according to multiple GOP sources on the call.”

    Noting that the rules package was released after the call and “formalizes some of the concessions that McCarthy has agreed to,” the outlet added that “the House adopts its rules package only after it selects a speaker, which McCarthy has not locked down, so there could be additional compromises made in the coming days.”

    This post has been updated with comment from Democratic Congressmen-elect Chris Deluzio (Pa.) and Maxwell Alejandro Frost (Fla.).

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • As Lease Sale Flops, Environmentalists Vow to Keep Fighting for Cook Inlet



    Environmentalists in Alaska and beyond pointed to the oil and gas industry’s lack of interest in a Friday lease sale for nearly a million acres of seafloor as the latest evidence that the U.S. must move beyond fossil fuels and protect the Cook Inlet.

    The U.S. Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) announced that Hilcorp Alaska LLC submitted the sole bid, offering $63,983 for one of the 93 available blocks. That lease may be granted after a 90-day review process.

    “The result should stiffen Interior’s spine to stop leasing our public lands for fossil fuel and instead align their management with the urgent need to combat climate change.”

    The Interior Department had initially canceled the lease sale in May, citing lack of industry interest, but was ultimately required to hold it before the end of the year by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which President Joe Biden signed into law in August.

    While the IRA included about $369 billion in “energy security and climate change” investments, campaigners had blasted concessions including the lease sale requirement, with Siqiniq Maupin, executive director of Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic, saying at the time: “This new bill is genocide, there is no other way to put it. This is a life-or-death situation and the longer we act as though the world isn’t on fire around us, the worse our burns will be. Biden has the power to prevent this, to mitigate the damage.”

    Campaigners on Friday also took aim at the administration, while pledging to continue their fight to protect the region.

    “This damaging sale never should have happened in the first place, and we’ll continue challenging it in court and fighting to preserve beautiful Cook Inlet,” said Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. “We urge Biden not to issue any leases without meaningful consideration of drilling’s threats to local communities and wildlife like the endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales, as he’s required to do by federal law.”

    The center joined with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Earthjustice—which represents Cook Inletkeeper, Kachemak Bay Conservation Society, and Alaska Community Action on Toxics—in filing a lawsuit last week over what was then the planned lease sale.

    “Lease sale 258 was a flop,” Earthjustice attorney Erik Grafe said Friday. “The result should stiffen Interior’s spine to stop leasing our public lands for fossil fuel and instead align their management with the urgent need to combat climate change.”

    “We urge Interior to start by exercising its discretion not to issue a lease to Hilcorp, the sole bidder on the lease,” he added. “It is a troubled operator with a long history of violations, the lease on which it bid is in important habitat for endangered belugas, and there should be no more oil leasing in the Inlet for Hilcorp or any other company.”

    The NRDC’s Julia Forgie also highlighted Hilcorp’s “record of safety violations and spills,” and argued that industry’s “lackluster” response to the sale “made clear that there’s no need to lease this vibrant ocean ecosystem for oil production.”

    As Reuters reported Friday:

    The federal government has held several oil and gas lease sales in the Cook Inlet since the 1970s, but no production has occurred in federal waters there to date. There are 14 active federal leases in Cook Inlet, all of which were purchased by Houston-based Hilcorp at the last federal auction in the region in 2017.
    Operating oil and gas platforms in the area are all in state waters, but oil production has declined substantially since peaking in the 1970s.

    “The 1970s heyday of Cook Inlet oil and gas development is long behind us as illustrated, once again, with today’s lackluster showing,” declared Nicole Whittington-Evans, director of Defenders of Wildlife’s Alaska Program. “Policy for Cook Inlet waters needs to keep pace with modern reality and focus on addressing the biodiversity and climate crises we face.”

    “The federal government must take aggressive measures to reduce disturbances and restore critically endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales, which have declined by 75%,” Whittington-Evans asserted. “And it must pivot to clean energy technologies and stop trying to double down on fossil fuel projects that undermine our climate goals.”

    Other Alaskans similarly called for moving on from planet-heating extraction efforts in the region—echoing increasingly urgent warnings from scientists who say humanity must keep fossil fuels in the ground.

    “Local opposition to Lease Sale 258 and new drilling activity remains strong,” Sue Mauger of Cook Inletkeeper said Friday. “Today’s outcome reinforces that fossil fuel development in Cook Inlet is no longer a sound investment. Alaskans know our climate crisis is no joke and are ready to move beyond the fossil fuel era and those who prioritize economic profits over livable communities. We won’t give up trying to protect Cook Inlet from carbon pollution, oil spill risks, and shortsighted thinking.”

    Roberta Highland, president of the Kachemak Bay Conservation Society, stressed that “they call these offshore oil leases but, for us in Kachemak Bay, these waters are neither out of sight nor out of mind.”

    “New drilling in Lower Cook Inlet,” she warned, “will dramatically change our lives, our local economy, and subsistence cultures.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Human Rights Advocates Alarmed Over Israel’s New “Fascist, Racist” Government

    Global concerns about the new Israeli government — especially what it means for Palestinians — continued to grow Thursday as Benjamin Netanyahu took the oath of office to again serve as prime minister, this time leading the most far-right and religiously conservative coalition in the country’s history. The embattled leader was sworn in following a 63-54 vote of confidence in his new government by…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • DOJ Suit Accuses Major Drug Distributor of Fueling US Opioid Epidemic

    The Biden administration on Thursday filed suit against one of the nation’s largest pharmaceutical distributors, AmerisourceBergen, and two of its subsidiaries for allegedly violating federal law and contributing to the opioid epidemic. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the complaint accuses AmerisourceBergen of at least hundreds of thousands of violations…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • ‘Amazing!’ Lula Applauded for Naming Amazon Defenders as Brazilian Ministers



    Environmentalists and rights advocates around the world are celebrating Brazilian President-elect Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s selection of Marina Silva and Sônia Guajajara to serve as the nation’s environment and Indigenous ministers, respectively.

    Lula, who is set to be sworn in Sunday after defeating right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro in an October runoff, confirmed the appointments Thursday, sparking a flood of applause and hope about what they signal for the leftist leader’s return to office.

    “Long live the strength of these women! Our forests are once again given the respect they deserve.”

    Since his 2019 inauguration, Bolsonaro has faced intense international condemnation for failing both the Amazon and Indigenous people through policies that critics argue encourage not only destruction of the rainforest but also attacks on its defenders.

    Under Bolsonaro, the Brazilian Amazon has seen record deforestation driven by agribusiness and other damaging industries. Recent research warns parts of the biodiverse rainforest may have already reached a key tipping point and never recover from shifting to savanna—which would have global consequences, given how much planet-heating carbon dioxide the Amazon stores.

    Supporters of Lula, a Workers’ Party member who previously served two terms as Brazil’s president, had stressed that his election was crucial for Indigenous people, the environment, and the global climate. Since his October victory, the incoming president has publicly vowed to make Amazon destruction “a thing of the past” and discussed creating a police unit for environmental crimes.

    Lula’s decisions to bring back Silva—who served under him previously—and establish the nation’ first-ever ministry for Indigenous peoples are seen as steps toward protecting the forest and those who rely on it. The Guardian highlighted that there are challenges ahead, “given the deliberate dismantling of the environment ministry” under Bolsonaro:

    “The ministry has been destroyed. It no longer exists. It will have to be rebuilt almost from scratch,” said Marcio Astrini, the head of an umbrella group of NGOs called the Climate Observatory.
    Astrini welcomed the return of experienced and knowledgeable environmental figures such as Silva, but warned the powerful politicians and criminal gangs pushing the rainforest towards a catastrophic tipping point would not suddenly disappear. “Amazon deforestation will not be liquidated overnight,” he said.

    Despite the anticipated difficulties, Silva’s appointment is a source of optimism for many. Marco Lambertini of World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) offered her his “warmest congratulations” and said that “after some of the worst years for the Brazilian environment I am thrilled by new hope for the Indigenous/local communities, all Brazilians, and all eight billion of us somehow dependent on [Brazil’s] immense nature.”

    “The four years of assault on the Amazon rainforest are ending,” declared Mario Barbatti, a theoretical chemist and physicist in France. “Marina Silva is one of the most respected environmental world leaders.”

    The Associated Press reported:

    Silva was born in the Amazon and worked as a rubber tapper as an adolescent. As environment minister she oversaw the creation of dozens of conservation areas and a sophisticated strategy against deforestation, with major operations against environmental criminals and new satellite surveillance. She also helped design the largest international effort to preserve the rainforest, the mostly Norway-backed Amazon Fund. Deforestation dropped dramatically.
    But Lula and Silva fell out as he began catering to farmers during his second term and Silva resigned in 2008.
    Lula appears to have convinced her that he has changed tack, and she joined his campaign after he embraced her proposals for preservation.

    BBC South America correspondent Katy Watson said Thursday that in an interview with Silva a few months ago, the returning minister told the reporter that she felt Lula was serious about defending the rainforest.

    “Thank you for the trust placed in me by Lula so that, together with our mobilized society, we will face the great challenge of rescuing and updating the lost socio-environmental agenda,” Silva tweeted in Portuguese Thursday.

    The AP noted that “Silva told the news network Globo TV shortly after the announcement that the name of the ministry she will lead will be changed to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change.”

    Several advocates throughout Brazil and beyond celebrated both appointments. Kenneth Roth, the former long-time executive director of the U.S.-based Human Rights Watch, proclaimed that “Lula’s win was a win for the Amazon.”

    Jennifer Morgan—who earlier this year stepped down as Greenpeace International’s executive director to serve as special envoy for international climate action in the German Foreign Ministry—also congratulated and celebrated both women on Twitter.

    “The world is fortunate to have you in this critical position at this key moment of history,” Morgan said of Silva. “Look forward working together to achieve your vision for a social, ecological transformation for the people and nature of Brazil.”

    Morgan wrote of Guajajara: “Your courage and tenacity is an inspiration. Celebrating this historic day for you and Indigenous peoples around the world.”

    As The Guardian detailed: “Guajajara was born in the Araribóia territory of the eastern Amazon and became one of the leading lights of Brazil’s flourishing Indigenous rights movement, as well as a prominent leftist politician. In 2018, Guajajara became the first Indigenous woman to run for Brazil’s vice presidency. She won a place in Brazil’s overwhelmingly white, male Congress in October’s election.”

    Welcoming both Guajajara and Silva in a Thursday tweet, Greenpeace said that “their history and commitment to the agendas they will lead will be critical in addressing the many challenges ahead.”

    “Amazing!! We were all hoping for it and now it becomes true: Marina Silva will become again Brazil’s environment minister,” said Anna Cavazzini, a German member of the European Parliament aligned with the Greens/European Free Alliance. “This is incredibly important for the fight against deforestation! Marina, we are looking forward to working with you!”

    Cavazzini called Guajajara’s appointment “another historic decision that gives me a lot of optimism for the future of Brazil,” uplifting a message from a Brazilian group that said she will take control of a new ministry “with the objective of guaranteeing access to education, health, land demarcation, and combating Indigenous genocide.”

    “The socio-environmental destruction project that was underway in the country is over!” the Climate Observatory said of Silva and Guajajara’s selections. “Long live the strength of these women! Our forests are once again given the respect they deserve.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.