Category: the

  • Vietnam has denounced what it called the brutal behavior of Chinese law enforcement personnel who it said beat and injured Vietnamese fishermen on a boat intercepted near the Paracel Islands.

    Vietnamese media said the Chinese attackers boarded the fishing boat near an atoll in the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea on Sunday and beat the crew with iron bars, seriously injuring four of them. They told Vietnamese authorities the men smashed the boat’s equipment and took away its catch.

    China denied the accusations saying “on-site operations were professional and restrained, and no injuries were found.”

    Both countries, as well as Taiwan, claim the islands but China occupies them entirely.

    What are the Paracel Islands?

    Known as Xisha in China and Hoang Sa in Vietnam, the archipelago consists of some 130 reefs and small coral islands, 400 kilometers (250 miles) east of central Vietnam and 350 km (220 miles) southeast of China’s Hainan island. They are 760 km (472 miles) north of the Spratly Islands, the other main disputed archipelago in the South China Sea. 

    The South China Sea is a strategically important shipping route with an estimated US$3.4 trillion worth of trade cruising through its waters every year. 

    The Paracels are believed to sit on top of large reserves of natural gas and oil though the extent is not known, as there has been little exploration of the area, partly due to territorial disputes over the islands.

    The archipelago is surrounded by rich fishing grounds that generations of Chinese and Vietnamese fishermen have worked. 

    sinking boat.JPG
    A Vietnamese boat (L) that was rammed by a Chinese vessel and sank near the disputed Paracel Islands, seen near a Marine Guard ship (R) off Vietnam’s Quang Ngai province, on May 29, 2014. Credit: Reuters/Stringer

    History of the Paracel Islands

    Both Vietnam and China say that the Paracels are mentioned in their ancient texts. The name Paracel, however, was adopted in the 16th century after Portuguese explorers named the islands “Ilhas do Pracel”. “Pracel”, or parcel, is a Portuguese term used by navigators to refer to a submerged bank or reef.

    France claimed the archipelago as part of the French Indochinese Union in the 19th century and put it under the same colonial administration as Vietnam’s southern mainland, known at the time as Cochinchina. The Chinese nationalist Kuomintang, now one of the main political parties in Taiwan, claimed the Paracels as territory of the Republic of China in January 1921.

    Japanese forces occupied the archipelago between 1939 and 1945. Disputes over the islands continued in later years between the governments of the then South Vietnam, which annexed some reefs, and the People’s Republic of China.

    On Jan. 19, 1974, Chinese troops attacked and defeated South Vietnamese forces deployed on the islands, killing 74 South Vietnamese sailors and soldiers in the so-called Battle of the Paracel Islands. Chinese troops then occupied the whole archipelago.

    China’s construction

    In 2012, China established Sansha City, headquartered on Woody Island, the largest Paracel island, which China calls Yongxing. The administrative headquarters is in charge of all of the features China claims in the South China Sea, including the Paracels and the Spratlys to the south.

    Sansha City.jpg
    Aerial view of Sansha in the disputed Paracel chain, on July 27, 2012. (STR/AFP)

    According to the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative think tank, China has at least 20 outposts in the Paracels. Three of them have harbors capable of handling large numbers of naval and civilian vessels and five have helipads. China opened the civil-military Sansha Yongxing Airport in 2014. 

    Woody Island has been developed into a complete urban hub protected by HQ-9 surface-to-air missile batteries. It is home to a growing civilian population of at least 2,300.

    Upgrades of island facilities have included a kindergarten and primary school in 2015. The island also has a courthouse, a cinema, banks, hospitals, post offices and a stadium, according to a report in Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post in May 2023.

    Vietnam’s claim

    Vietnam has not abandoned its claim over the Paracel islands, which it officially classifies as a district of Danang City, called the Hoang Sa District, established in 1997.

    In its complaint about China’s treatment of the fishing crew, Vietnam’s foreign ministry referred to the islands as Vietnamese.

    “Vietnam is extremely concerned, indignant and resolutely protests the brutal treatment by Chinese law enforcement forces of Vietnamese fishermen and fishing boats operating in the Hoang Sa archipelago of Vietnam,” foreign ministry spokesperson Pham Thu Hang said in a statement on Oct. 2. 

    anti China protest.JPG
    An anti-China protest to mark the 43rd anniversary of China’s occupation of the Paracel Islands, in Hanoi, Vietnam, on Jan. 19, 2017. (Reuters/Kham)

    Confrontations

    In one of the most serious escalations of the dispute between Hanoi and Beijing over the archipelago, in May 2014 China moved an oil-drilling platform into waters near the Paracels, leading to a three-month standoff. The crisis triggered an unprecedented wave of anti-China protests in Vietnam, until China withdrew the oil rig a month earlier than scheduled.

    Fishing crews from central Vietnam operate around the Chinese-occupied reefs and are often subjected to harassment by Chinese maritime militia and law enforcement personnel, fishermen say.

    In 2020, a Chinese maritime surveillance vessel rammed and sank a Vietnamese fishing boat. Vietnam lodged an official protest, saying: “The Chinese vessel committed an act that violated Vietnam’s sovereignty over the Hoang Sa archipelago and threatened the lives and damaged the property and legitimate interests of Vietnamese fishermen.”

    Edited by Mike Firn.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Vice presidential hopefuls Tim Walz, the Democratic governor of Minnesota, and J.D. Vance, the junior Republican senator from Ohio, faced off Tuesday night in New York. It was the first time the two men have debated, and likely the last debate of this year’s race to the White House. The evening began with a decidedly less awkward handshake than the one that kicked off the presidential debate a month ago, and quickly moved into a foreign policy question. One unknown at the outset, however, was to what extent the moderators or the candidates would bring up climate change. 

    At the presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump last month, the climate question didn’t come until the tail end of the candidates’ sparring session. This time it was the second question that moderators asked, and both candidates tacked notably to the political center, with Walz endorsing “an all above energy policy” and Vance seeking to sidestep the question of whether human-caused climate change is happening. 

    The debate came amid a politically and climatically dramatic few months. Walz and Harris arrived to the race historically late and have been sprinting to make their views on a myriad of issues known, including climate change. And while climate ranks at the bottom of the list of voter concerns, climate change-fueled disasters have been battering the country, from flooding in Vermont to wildfires in California and, most recently, the tranches of devastation that Hurricane Helene wrought along the southeastern United States.

    CBS News moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan pegged their question to Helene and pointed to research showing that climate change makes hurricanes “larger, stronger, and more deadly,” as well as polling showing that 7 in 10 Americans favor taking steps to address climate change. 

    Both candidates responded by expressing their condolences to the victims of the hurricane, with Vance calling it an “unbelievable, unspeakable human tragedy.” They differed, however, on both the causes and the solutions to the broader climate question. 

    Vance, who answered first, endorsed a robust federal response to help disasters victims before turning to the bigger picture. He avoided acknowledging the reality of human-caused climate change, instead referring to “crazy weather patterns” and global warming as “weird science.” For the sake of argument, Vance started from the premise that carbon emissions drive climate change — “Let’s just say that’s true,” he said. Vance argued that bringing manufacturing back to the United States would reduce emissions, falsely claiming that America has “the cleanest economy in the entire world.” 

    In regard to solutions, Vance derided the Biden administration’s incentivization of solar panels because, he said, their components often come from abroad. He alluded to the potential for building new nuclear energy facilities and explicitly called for more energy production domestically, without specifically mentioning oil or natural gas. 

    A man with brown hair, a beard, and blue eyes, wearing a suit with a red tie, stands in front of a blue screen with his left arm extended
    J.D. Vance, the Republican Senator from Ohio, at the vice presidential debate. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

    If Vance hedged over the reality of climate change, Walz stated the problem emphatically. “Climate change is real. Reducing our impact is absolutely critical,” he said, touting the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, the biggest clean energy spending bill in history, which he said “has created jobs across the country.” In an awkward turn of phrase, Walz said, “We are seeing us becoming an energy superpower for the future, not just the current.” 

    He did not take the opportunity to highlight his own climate record, which is remarkably lengthy. As governor of Minnesota, he signed legislation that reformed clean energy permitting and requires the state’s utilities to get 100 percent of their energy from clean sources by 2040. Walz also failed to mention his support of the expansion of the Line 3 oil pipeline that runs through Minnesota, which is having the same climate impact as 50 new coal-fired power plants

    Ultimately, the climate consequences of this election could be enormous. It could, for instance, determine how close the U.S., which has emitted more greenhouse gases throughout history than any other country, comes to achieving the dramatic emissions cuts scientists say are needed to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. And even a casual debate viewer couldn’t miss the two candidates’ divergent views on America’s energy future. 

    The Democratic ticket has framed combating the climate crisis as a matter of protecting freedom, and has urged the continued investment in clean energy. The official GOP platform, on the other hand, includes a rollback of rules encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles and calls for the United States to become the world leader in oil, gas, and coal production. Some researchers have estimated that a second Trump term could add an extra 4 billion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere by 2030, compared to a Democratic presidency.

    Vance returned to the theme of domestic energy production throughout the debate, at one point saying that one of the quickest ways to address the housing crisis is to “drill, baby, drill.” His closing statement included an anecdote about how when he was growing up, his grandmother didn’t always have enough money to turn on the heat — and he argued that Biden and Harris’ energy policies are making it harder for everyday Americans to afford energy. (The Inflation Reduction Act is expected to save Americans $38 billion in electricity bills by 2030.) Climate and energy did not come up in Walz’s closing statement.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Climate was a top question at the VP debate. Both candidates actually answered — sort of. on Oct 2, 2024.


    This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Tik Root.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Laura Flanders & Friends and was authored by Laura Flanders & Friends.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Comprehensive coverage of the day’s news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice.

    The post The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays – October 1, 2024 appeared first on KPFA.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Our hearts go out to the people impacted by Hurricane Helene and their anti-government governments, who will be replaced one day with public servants, which is what this conversation is about. To help those who are impacted, there’s a resource on where to donate in the show notes. (Do not choose the Red Cross, for reasons explained in the show notes). Thank you. 

    Thank you to everyone who joined our live taping with Laboratories of Autocracy and Saving Democracy author David Pepper, who is not just a democracy warrior, but also the mastermind behind the new podcast series Project 2025: Up Close and Personal. Picture this: short, terrifying vignettes with a cast so star-studded, you’d think it was Hollywood’s last gasp before a fascist takeover—J. Smith-Cameron, Fisher Stevens, Richard Schiff, Morgan Fairchild, Omid Abtahi, and many more! We previewed “Chapter 2” of the series–it’s the audio equivalent of a cold sweat. You can listen to it [here].

    Democrats have been playing defense for so long, they’ve forgotten what offense looks like. “There are two million uncontested races out there,” David pointed out, which is about as comforting as knowing JD Vance’s particular brand of weird fills the halls of power in Republican hostage states. David also shared the story of how he got a call out of the blue from Vice President Kamala Harris last spring, to discuss ways to fight back. Thanks to the audience Q&A, he shared who he thinks should be her Attorney General—should she win, of course.

    Want to make that dream a reality? Join the fight! Gaslit Nation hosts phonebanks with Sister District every Wednesday at 6 p.m. RSVP [here]. Join our next live taping on Tuesday October 1st at 12pm ET with Greg Palast, discussing his new film Vigilantes Inc: America’s New Vote Suppression Hitmen. Bring your questions on all the ways Russian-backed MAGA is trying to steal the election, their plans if they lose, and ways to protect the vote. 

    Come As You Are Weekly Political Salons! Join us every Monday at 4 PM ET via Zoom! Let’s share frustrations, ask burning questions, seek support, and help shape Gaslit Nation. Everyone’s voice matters—whether you’re a political junkie or just finding your voice, you belong here! Recordings available exclusively on Patreon.

    🎤 Upcoming Virtual Live Tapings:

    • October 1 at 12 PM ET: Join investigative journalist Greg Palast to discuss his new film Vigilantes Inc: America’s New Vote Suppression Hitmen

    • October 24 7pm ET: How to Make a Podcast workshop – we need your voice! 

    All these events, access to our Victory Chat and Art is Survival Chat, ad-free shows, bonus episodes, Q&As, and more await at Patreon.com/Gaslit at the Truth-Teller level and higher. Annual discounts available!

    Show Notes:

    How To Help After Hurricane Helene https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/2024-09-26-how-to-help-hurricane-helene-victims-where-to-donate

    The Red Cross Won’t Save Houston It has proven itself unequal to the task of massive disaster relief. We need a new kind of humanitarian response. https://slate.com/business/2017/08/dont-give-money-to-the-red-cross-we-need-a-new-way.html


    This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Human Rights Watch and was authored by Human Rights Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Here he goes again, cap in hand, begging for the alms of war.  Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been touring the United States, continuing his lengthy salesmanship for Ukraine’s ongoing military efforts against Russia.  The theme is familiar and constantly reiterated: the United States must continue to back Kyiv in its rearguard action for civilisation in the face of Russian barbarism.  By attempting, not always convincingly, to universalise his country’s plight, Zelenskyy hopes to keep some lustre on an increasingly fading project.

    The Ukrainian president has succeeded most brazenly in getting himself, and the war effort, into the innards of the US presidential election.  In doing so, he has become an unabashed campaigner for the Democrats and the Kamala Harris ticket while offering uncharitable views about the Republicans.  (Electoral interference, anyone?)  The Republican contender, Donald Trump, had good reason to make the following observation about Zelenskyy: “Every time he comes into the country he walks away with $60 billion … he wants them [the Democrats] to win this election so badly.”

    Even as a lame duck president, Joe Biden could still be wooed to advance another aid package.  This seemed to be done, as the White House records, on threadbare details about Zelenskyy’s “plan to achieve victory over Russia.”  According to the readout, diplomatic, economic and military aspects of the plan were discussed.  “President Biden is determined to provide Ukraine with the support it needs to win.”

    Detail was also scarce in a briefing given by White House national security spokesperson John Kirby.  Zelenskyy’s plan to end the war “contains a series of initiatives and steps and objectives that [he] believes will be important”.

    In a statement, Biden announced that he had directed the Department of Defense to allocate the rest of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative funds by the end of the year along with US$5.5 billion in Presidential Drawdown Authority.  The US$2.4 billion from the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative is intended to supply Ukraine “with additional air defense, Unmanned Aerial Systems, and air-to-ground ammunitions, as well as strengthen Ukraine’s defense industrial base and support its maintenance and sustainment requirements.”

    In terms of materiel, an additional Patriot air defence battery is to be furnished to Ukraine’s air defences, along with additional Patriot missiles. Training for Ukrainian F-16 pilots is to be expanded.  The air-to-ground Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), colloquially known as glide bombs, will also be supplied.

    Ukraine’s fate is being annexed to the US election campaign, with the Ukrainian president keen to make his own boisterous intervention in the election.  On September 22, Zelenskyy paid a visit to a military facility in Scranton, Pennsylvania.  It was calculated for maximum effect.  The facility is not only responsible for manufacturing some of the equipment being used in the war against Russia, notably 155-millimeter howitzer rounds, but is a crucial state for the presidential contenders.  On hand to join him was a full coterie of Democrats: Gov. Josh Shapiro, Senator Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Representative Matt Cartwright (D-8th District)

    Harris is clear that any administration she leads will see no deviation from current policy.  Peace proposals were to be scoffed at, while prospects for a Ukrainian victory had to be seriously entertained.  Stopping shy of playing the treason card in remarks made on September 26, Harris claimed that there were those “in my country who would instead force Ukraine to give up large parts of its sovereign territory, who would demand that Ukraine accept neutrality, and would require Ukraine to forgo security relationships with other nations.”  And such types had endorsed “proposals” identical to “those of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin.”

    That message of sanctimonious chest beating was also embraced by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who could only see Zelenskyy as a fighter “for freedom and the rule of law on behalf of democracies around the world” while “Trump and his craven MAGA followers side time and again with Vladimir Putin,” one responsible for a “filthy imperialist and irredentist invasion.”  Clearly, the Zelenskyy promotions tour has exercised some wizardry.

    The full soldering of Ukrainian matters to US electoral politics has received a frosty response from various Republicans.  House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) demanded nothing less than Zelenskyy’s dismissal of the Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova.  “Ambassador Markarova organised an event in which you toured an American manufacturing site.”  The tour took place “in a politically contested battleground state, was led by a top political surrogate for Kamala Harris, and failed to include a single Republican because – on purpose – no Republicans were invited.”

    Those on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, seething at Zelenskyy’s electoral caper, have launched an investigation into the possibility that taxpayer funds had been misused to the benefit of the Harris presidential campaign.  Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), in a letter to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, noted that, as the Department of Justice was “highly focused on combatting electoral interference, the Committee requests DOJ review the Biden-Harris Administration’s coordination with the Ukrainian government regarding President Zelensky’s itinerary while in America.”

    Comer could not resist a pertinent reminder that the Democrats had made much the same charge against Trump while in office in 2019. That occasion also featured Zelenskyy, only that time, the accusation was that Trump had used him “to benefit his 2020 presidential campaign, despite a lack of any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of President Trump.”

    GOP dissatisfaction is far from unreasonable.  Zelenskyy’s sojourn is nothing less than a sustained effort at electoral meddling, the sort of thing that normally turns US exceptionalists into rabid hyenas complaining of virtue despoiled.  Only this time, there are politicians and officials in freedom’s land happy to tolerate and even endorse it.  At stake is a war to prolong.

    The post Zelenskyy Joins the US Election first appeared on Dissident Voice.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Laura Flanders & Friends and was authored by Laura Flanders & Friends.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Amnesty International and was authored by Amnesty International.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Human Rights Watch and was authored by Human Rights Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Nathan Ryder raises livestock and grows vegetables on 10 acres of pasture in Golconda, Illinois with his wife and three kids. They also live in a food desert; the local grocery store closed a few months ago, and the closest farmers market is at least 45 miles away, leaving their community struggling to access nutritious food. 

    Opening another supermarket isn’t the answer. The U.S. government has spent the last decade investing millions to establish them in similar areas, with mixed results. Ryder thinks it would be better to expand federal assistance programs to make them more available to those in need, allowing more people to use those benefits at local farms like his own. 

    Expanding the reach of the nation’s small growers and producers could be a way to address growing food insecurity, he said, a problem augmented by inflation and supply chains strained by climate change. “It’s a great opportunity, not only to help the bottom-line of local farmers, instead of some of these giant commodity food corporations … but to [help people] buy healthy, wholesome foods,” said Ryder.

    That is just one of the solutions that could be codified into the 2024 farm bill, but it isn’t likely to happen anytime soon. The deadline to finalize the omnibus bill arrives Monday, and with lawmakers deadlocked along partisan lines, it appears likely that they will simply extend the current law for at least another year. 

    Congress has been here before. Although the farm bill is supposed to be renewed every five years, legislators passed a one-year extension of the 2018 policy last November after struggling to agree on key nutrition and conservation facets of the $1.5 trillion-dollar spending package. 

    Extensions and delays have grave implications, because the farm bill governs many aspects of America’s food and agricultural systems. It covers everything from food assistance programs and crop subsidies to international food aid and even conservation measures. Some of them, like crop insurance, are permanently funded, meaning any hiccups in the reauthorization timeline do not impact them. But others, such as beginning farmer and rancher development grants and local food promotion programs, are entirely dependent upon the appropriations within the law. Without a new appropriation or an extension of the existing one, some would shut down until the bill is reauthorized. If Congress fails to act before Jan. 1, several  programs would even revert to 1940s-era policies with considerable impacts on consumer prices for commodities like milk.

    After nearly a century of bipartisanship, negotiations over recent farm bills have been punctuated by partisan stalemates. The main difference this time around is that a new piece is dominating the Hill’s political chessboard: The election. “It doesn’t seem like it’s going to happen before the election, which puts a lot of teeth-gnashing and hair-wringing into hand,” said Ryder. He is worried that a new administration and a new Congress could result in a farm bill that further disadvantages small farmers and producers. “It’s like a choose-your-own-adventure novel right now. Which way is this farm bill going to go?”

    A combine harvests wheat in an expansive hillside field in rural Washington.
    The Farm Bill covers everything from crop subsidies to food assistance programs and even conservation measures. Typically a bipartisan effort, it has of late been bogged down by politics.
    Rick Dalton for Design Pics Editorial / Universal Images Group via Getty Images

    The new president will bring their own agricultural policy agenda to the job, which could influence aspects of the bill. And, of course, whoever sits in the Oval Office can veto whatever emerges from Congress. (President Obama threatened to nix the bill House Republicans put forward in 2013 because it proposed up to $39 billion in cuts to food benefits.) Of even greater consequence is the potential for a dramatically different Congress. Of the 535 seats in the House and Senate, 468 are up for election. That will likely lead to renewed negotiations among a new slate of lawmakers, a process further complicated by the pending retirement of Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, the Democratic chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Although representatives are ramping up pressure on Congressional leadership to enact a new farm bill before this Congress reaches the end of its term, there is a high chance all of this will result in added delays, if not require an entirely new bill to be written.

    That has profound implications for consumers already struggling with rising prices and farmers facing the compounding pressures of consolidation, not to mention efforts to remake U.S. food systems to mitigate, and adapt to, a warming world, said Rebecca Wolf, a senior food policy analyst with Food & Water Watch. (The nonprofit advocates for policies that ensure access to safe food, clean water, and a livable climate.) “The farm bill has a really big impact on changing the kind of food and farm system that we’re building,” said Wolf. 

    Still, Monday’s looming deadline is somewhat arbitrary — lawmakers have until the end of the calendar year to pass a bill, because most key programs have already been extended through the appropriations cycle. But DeShawn Blanding, who analyzes food and environment policy for the science nonprofit the Union of Concerned Scientists, finds the likelihood of that happening low. He expects to see negotiations stretch into next year, and perhaps into 2026. “Congress is much more divided now,” he said. 

    The House Agriculture committee passed a draft bill in May, but the proposal has not reached the floor for a vote because of negotiating hang-ups. Meanwhile, the Senate Agriculture committee has yet to introduce a bill, although the chamber’s Democrats and Republicans have introduced frameworks that reflect their agendas. Given the forthcoming election and higher legislative priorities, like funding the government before December 20, the last legislative day on the congressional calendar, “it’s a likelihood that this could be one of the longest farm bills that we’ve had,” Blanding said.

    As is often the case, food assistance funding is among the biggest points of contention. SNAP and the Thrifty Food Plan, which determines how much a household receives through SNAP, have remained two of the biggest sticking points, with Democrats and Republicans largely divided over how the program is structured and funded. The Republican-controlled House Agriculture committee’s draft bill proposed the equivalent of nearly $30 billion in cuts to SNAP by limiting the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s ability to adjust the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan, used to set SNAP benefits. The provision, supported by Republicans, met staunch opposition from Democrats who have criticized the plan for limiting benefits during an escalating food insecurity crisis

    The farm bill “was supposed to be designed to help address food insecurity and the food system at large and should boost and expand programs like SNAP that help do that,” said Blanding, which becomes all the more vital as climate change continues to dwindle food access for many Americans. Without a new farm bill, “we’re stuck with what [food insecurity] looked like in 2018, which is not what it looks like today in 2024.” 

    Nutrition programs governed by the current law were designed to address pre-pandemic levels of hunger in a world that had not yet crossed key climate thresholds. As the crisis of planetary warming deepens, fueling crises that tend to deepen existing barriers to food access in areas affected, food programs authorized in the farm bill are “an extraordinarily important part of disaster response,” said Vince Hall, chief government relations officer at the nonprofit Feeding America. “The number of disasters that Feeding America food banks are asked to respond to each year is only increasing with extreme weather fueled by climate change.” 

    That strain is making it more critical than ever that Congress increase funding for programs like the Emergency Food Assistance Program, or TEFAP. Its Farm to Food Bank Project Grants, established under the 2018 law, underwrites projects that enable the nation’s food banks to have a supply of fresh food produced by local farmers and growers. It must be written into the new bill or risk being phased out. 

    David Toledo, an urban farmer in Chicago, used to work with a local food pantry and community garden that supplies fresh produce to neighborhoods that need it. To Toledo, the farm bill is a gateway to solutions to the impacts of climate change on the accessibility of food in the U.S. He wants to see lawmakers put aside politics and pass a bill for the good of the people they serve.

    “With the farm bill, what is at stake is a healthy nation, healthy communities, engagements from farmers and rising farmers. And I mean, God forbid, but the potential of seeing a lot more hunger,” Toledo said. “It needs to pass. It needs to pass with bipartisan support. There’s so much at the table right now.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The election could shape the future of America’s food system on Sep 27, 2024.


    This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Ayurella Horn-Muller.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • To get all episodes ad free, bonus shows, and more, be sure to subscribe at Patreon.com/Gaslit! Discounted annual memberships available! 

    Eric Adams, soon-to-be-former Mayor of New York City, has finally been indicted—a surprise to no one. In this special episode of Gaslit Nation, we break down the latest developments and remind our listeners: If this is what we know, imagine what we don’t. Adams’ corruption and assault on democracy in NYC are just the visible tip of a much larger, deeply entrenched network of local corruption that has long served as a feeding ground for foreign adversaries. America is in a war of attrition, both abroad and at home. The barbarians are at the gate, and now more than ever, it’s going to take a resurgence of people-powered movements to defend our democracy and push back against these threats.

    In this special episode, we examine the latest attacks on American democracy and national security by Trump and his MAGA stormtroopers. At a recent rally in North Carolina, Trump once again vowed to hand Ukraine over to Putin. Meanwhile, Speaker Mike Johnson echoed this dangerous rhetoric by attempting to remove Ukraine’s Ambassador to the U.S., a move we warned about during our latest Gaslit Nation political salon—straight from the Paul Manafort playbook.

    To help illuminate this fight, we’re sharing an excerpt of a new radio play series written by David Pepper, author of Saving Democracy, called Trump’s Project 2025: Up Close and Personal. In this powerful excerpt, we meet Eve, a nurse grappling with infertility, whose access to vital treatment is jeopardized by a new president’s executive order banning certain fertility procedures. You can read Chapter Two of David Pepper’s 2025: A Novel at davidpepper.substack.com/p/2025-a-novel-chapter-2. David will join us in this week’s bonus show, out Saturday, to explain how to defeat Project 2025 in Republican hostage states. 

    Come As You Are Weekly Political Salons! Join us every Monday at 4 PM ET via Zoom! Let’s share frustrations, ask burning questions, seek support, and help shape Gaslit Nation. Everyone’s voice matters—whether you’re a political junkie or just finding your voice, you belong here! Recordings available exclusively on Patreon.

    🎤 Upcoming Virtual Live Tapings:

    • October 1 at 12 PM ET: Join investigative journalist Greg Palast to discuss his new film Vigilantes Inc: America’s New Vote Suppression Hitmen. 

      Join Andrea that night for the VP Debate Watch Party in the Victory Chat!

    • October 24 7pm ET: How to Make a Podcast workshop – we need your voice! 

    All these events, access to our Victory Chat and Art is Survival Chat, ad-free shows, bonus episodes, Q&As, and more await at Patreon.com/Gaslit at the Truth-Teller level and higher. Annual discounts available! 

    To our Democracy Defender and higher folks, be sure to submit your questions for our next Q&A bonus show! Thank you to everyone who supports Gaslit Nation—we could not make the show without you!

    Show Notes:

    New York City Voters! Vote YES on Prop 1 to protect abortion, LGBTQ+, and other human rights, but VOT NO on Props 2 through 6 to stop Eric Adams’ powergrab. Remember to flip your ballot and VOTE your entire ballot. More info here: https://x.com/MaketheRoadNY/status/1836108886262321175

    NYC Mayor Eric Adams charged with bribery and taking foreign donations Federal prosecutors accuse the mayor of wire fraud in a years-long scheme to take gifts and donations in exchange for influence and favors. https://wapo.st/3ZBy5f9

    NYPD officer, 2 bystanders shot on Brooklyn subway platform when police fire on armed suspect, authorities say https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/nypd-shooting-sutter-ave-subway-station-brooklyn/

    Meet Ashley Cossins: Report from the Front Lines: Missouri https://davidpepper.substack.com/p/report-from-the-front-lines-missouri-17c

    David Pepper’s Radio Series: Project 2025–Up Close and Personal https://trumpsproject2025pod.com/

    Opening Clip: https://x.com/atrupar/status/1839322551614362096


    This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Fascism is being mentioned more and more in the context of U.S. and European elections. It is a term that is bandied about often rather loosely. Orwell wrote that it is understood to be “something not desirable.” But it is a complex political and economic synergy that has racism, force and nationalism as its animating matrix. It involves heavy doses of propaganda and media manipulation. Mussolini, in one of his more honest moments said, “Fascism should be more properly called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.” For Americans it is universally associated with despotic regimes in other countries. It can’t happen here. Huey Long, the self-styled populist governor of Louisiana, once warned, “If fascism ever comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag.”


    This content originally appeared on AlternativeRadio and was authored by info@alternativeradio.org.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on VICE News and was authored by VICE News.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The 2014 Umbrella Movement was a 79-day pro-democracy civil disobedience campaign in Hong Kong. The protesters, many of whom were teenagers and university students, used umbrellas as protection from police pepper spray and tear gas, giving the movement its nickname.

    Key figures in the movement continued to advocate for democracy in Hong Kong long after the initial protests ended. Here’s what they’re doing now.



    Photo 1: Nathan Law, second from left, and other student protest leaders arrive for talks with authorities, Oct. 21, 2014. (AFP) / Photo 2: A wanted notice for Law, Aug. 30, 2024. (Reuters)


    NATHAN LAW

    Then: Student leader during Umbrella Movement

    Now: London-based activist

    After 2014

    • Became leader of Hong Kong Federation of Students in 2015.
    • Co-founded the pro-democracy Demosisto party in 2016 and was elected to the Legislative Council of Hong Kong but disqualified by the courts.
    • Eventually jailed in connection with his role in the Umbrella Movement.
    • Left Hong Kong after the passage of the National Security Law in 2020. He surfaced in London, where he was granted political asylum. 
    • Hong Kong police have issued an arrest warrant for him and revoked his passport. 

     



    Photo 1: Alex Chow smiles as supporters encourage him in Hong Kong, Oct. 6, 2014. (AP) / Photo 2: Chow speaks at a New York rally, June 12, 2021. (Getty Images)


    ALEX CHOW

    Then: A main organizer of the Occupy Central campaign. Leader of the Hong Kong Federation of Students. Organizer and speaker during Umbrella Movement

    Now: U.S.-based activist

    After 2014

    • Eventually jailed in connection with his role in the movement.
    • Left Hong Kong about six months after the National Security Law was passed.
    • Studied in London and California, where he received a doctoral degree. 
    • Has served as board chairman of the U.S.-based Hong Kong Democracy Council and is a current board member. He also is a founding member and advisor for Flow Hong Kong, a magazine for the city’s diaspora.

     



    Photo 1: Joshua Wong delivers a speech, Oct. 1, 2014. (Reuters) / Photo 2: Wong arrives at Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre, March 2, 2021. (Reuters)


    JOSHUA WONG

    Then: Convenor and founder of the Hong Kong student activist group Scholarism

    Now: In prison

    After 2014

    • Co-founder of Demosisto, a former pro-democracy youth activist group that disbanded in June 2020. 
    • Barred from running for office.
    • Jailed in connection with his role in the movement and after his release has been jailed multiple times. 

     



    Photo 1: Agenes Chow, center, and other activists at a protest, Aug. 31, 2014. (Getty Images) / Photo 2: Chow speaks from Toronto during an online interview, Dec. 5, 2023. (AFP)


    AGNES CHOW

    Then: Founding member of Demosisto and former spokesperson of Scholarism. 

    Now: In exile in Canada

    After 2014

    • Ran for Legislative Council but was blocked by authorities.
    • Arrested and jailed for her role in the 2019-20 protests. 
    • After serving her first sentence, she was rearrested under the national security law on suspicion of “collusion with foreign forces,” then released on bail pending investigation, and subjected to a travel ban.
    • Forced to go on a patriotic “study trip” to mainland China. Allowed to study in Canada on condition she return to Hong Kong by the end of 2023. She later announced she was going into exile there. 
    • Hong Kong police have listed her as a wanted person and warned they will “pursue her for life.”

     



    Photo 1: Benny Tai cries during a Hong Kong rally, Oct. 3, 2014. (AP) / Photo 2: Tai arrives for a court hearing, March 1, 2021. (Reuters)


    BENNY TAI

    Then: Occupy Central movement co-founder. University of Hong Kong law professor

    Now: In prison

    After 2014

    • Involved in plans to get pro-democracy legislators elected in Hong Kong.
    • One of 47 democracy advocates charged with conspiracy to commit subversion in 2021 for their involvement in an unofficial primary. Pleaded guilty and is seeking a lighter sentence.

     



    Photo 1: Rev. Chu Yiu-ming, right, chants slogans as the movement kicks off, Aug. 31, 2014. (Reuters) / Photo 2: Rev. Chu Yiu-ming poses in Taipei, Dec. 1, 2023. (AFP)


    REV. CHU YIU-MING

    Then: Occupy Central co-founder

    Now: In exile in Taiwan

    After 2014

    • Convicted in April 2019 for crimes related to his role in the Umbrella protests and received a suspended sentence.
    • In 2023, published a memoir, “Confessions of a Bell Toller,” on his life helping the needy and battling authoritarian rule.

     



    Photo 1: Chan Kin-man speaks at a press conference, Oct. 1, 2014. (AFP) / Photo 2: Chan smiles after his release from prison, March 14, 2020. (AFP)


    CHAN KIN-MAN

    Then: Occupy Central co-founder. Sociology professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong

    Now: Researcher at Academia Sinica focusing on the Umbrella Movement 

    After 2014

    • Forced out of Chinese University of Hong Kong
    • Jailed for 16 months for his role in the Umbrella Movement and released in 2020.
    • Leaves city to teach at a university in Taiwan in 2021
    • Gives final lecture in Taiwan in June 2024.

     



    Photo 1: Joshua Wong, left, and Lester Shum, right, speak to demonstrators, Nov. 26, 2014. (Getty Images) / Photo 2: Shum shows his charge sheet, Jan. 7, 2021. (AFP)


    LESTER SHUM

    Then: Deputy leader of Hong Kong Federation of Students 

    Now: In prison

    After 2014

    • Elected to Hong Kong District Council in 2019.
    • Ran for Legislative Council in 2020 but the government invalidated his nomination.
    • Sentenced in 2021, for participating in an unlawful assembly in 2020.
    • One of 47 democracy advocates charged with conspiracy to commit subversion in 2021 for their involvement in an unofficial primary. Pleaded guilty.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Written by Paul Nelson, Graphics by Amanda Weisbrod.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Ten years ago, as the streets of Hong Kong pulsed with pro-democracy demonstrations, riot police repeatedly fired pepper spray and tear gas at the crowds that sometimes swelled to more than 100,000.

    To protect themselves, protesters held up umbrellas – which became an iconic image of the protests that went viral in local and international media. Yellow became the protest umbrella color for its contrast against the dark clothing of many demonstrators, and the protests became known as the “Umbrella Movement.”

    It was the largest show of civil disobedience since control of the former British colony was handed over to China in 1997. Tens of thousands of people, many of them students, camped in the streets and for 11 weeks occupied much of the business district of the city of 7 million people.

    What sparked the protests?

    The protesters’ main demand was the right to elect the chief executive of Hong Kong, which was promised in the Basic Law, the constitution for post-handover Hong Kong as a “special autonomous region” of China under the “one country, two systems” formula that gave the city some autonomy and the right to retain its system for 50 years.

    Small protests over the lack of movement on candidate selection had been increasing when, on Aug. 31, 2014, China’s parliament decreed that elections in Hong Kong in 2017 would be permitted — from a list of candidates pre-approved by Beijing and nominated by a body of business elites and pro-Beijing groups.

    Pro-democracy protesters open their umbrellas to mark one month since they took the street, in the Admiralty district of Hong Kong, Oct. 28, 2014. (Nicolas Asfouri/AFP)
    Pro-democracy protesters open their umbrellas to mark one month since they took the street, in the Admiralty district of Hong Kong, Oct. 28, 2014. (Nicolas Asfouri/AFP)

    The ruling sent people out into the streets banging pots and pans and chanting, and prompted waves of university campus strikes and protests.

    Pro-democracy leaders formed plans for a civil disobedience campaign against the decision, releasing a manifesto called “Occupy Central with Love and Peace” and calling for the takeover of streets outside the city’s financial district on Oct. 1, China’s national day.

    A fast-moving series of campus protests and actions by student groups to take over city streets led “Occupy Central” to be moved up several days.

    People built a protest city of tents and stages that rang out with protest songs while students did homework in camps. Activists and ordinary citizens demonstrated outside government headquarters and occupied city intersections and thoroughfares.

    How did umbrellas get involved?

    Hong Kong authorities declared the protests illegal and a “violation of the rule of law,” and tensions began to mount.

    On the night of Sept. 26 and into the next day, riot police clashed with protesters on the streets, firing pepper spray at them and arresting some. Over subsequent days, protesters began using umbrellas to protect themselves. 

    “The image is a poignant one, and emphasizes the asymmetry of force: an innocuous household object held up against helmeted police officers wielding poisonous substances for crowd control,” the U.S. publication Quartz wrote.

    Riot police use pepper spray against protesters after thousands of people block a main road to the financial central district outside the government headquarters in Hong Kong, Sept. 28, 2014. (Vincent Yu/AP)
    Riot police use pepper spray against protesters after thousands of people block a main road to the financial central district outside the government headquarters in Hong Kong, Sept. 28, 2014. (Vincent Yu/AP)

    The first known appearance of the term “umbrella revolution” was in the hashtag #UmbrellaRevolution generated by a news aggregator and circulated with a Sept. 28, 2014, report on the protests in the online edition of the British daily, The Independent. 

    Use of the hashtag along with eye-catching umbrella photographs spread among Hong Kong journalists and activists. The outpouring of umbrella memes included clever Cantonese puns and word play – and even a meme featuring Chinese paramount leader Xi Jinping holding a yellow umbrella.

    Was the Umbrella Movement an example of a “revolution?”

    Despite the worldwide sympathy for Hong Kong protesters, campaign leaders were quick to disavow the term “revolution.”

    They flatly rejected comparisons to the color revolutions that had seen authoritarian governments in former Soviet republics and elsewhere overthrown, stressing their focus on practical reforms.

    “We are not seeking revolution. We just want democracy!” Joshua Wong, a leading figure of the student movement, was quoted by The Washington Post.

    “This is not a color revolution,” Lester Shum, the deputy leader of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, told the Post.

    Riot police fire tear gas on student protesters occupying streets surrounding the government headquarters in Hong Kong, Sept. 29, 2014. (Wally Santana/AP)
    Riot police fire tear gas on student protesters occupying streets surrounding the government headquarters in Hong Kong, Sept. 29, 2014. (Wally Santana/AP)

    Protest leaders warned that talk of revolution would alienate the broader Hong Kong public and give ammunition to Chinese Communist Party leaders who viewed the protests as rebellion and wanted to crush them.

    The mainstream Occupy Central campaign agreed on “Umbrella Movement,” but some groups that advocated more aggressive tactics continued to use “Umbrella Revolution.”

    The occupation and protests that began on Sept. 26 lasted in pockets of Hong Kong for 79 days, until Dec. 15. 

    They did not achieve their goal of universal suffrage and Wong, Shum and many protest leaders are in jail, while others have gone into exile to avoid arrest under draconian security and sedition laws.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.