RSN: William Boardman | Defund the Police State, Before It's Too Late

23 July 20 Don’t Be an RSN Tourist – Get Involved! We are serious about RSN’s Mission. We take seriously all that RSN does and its impact on the wellbeing of the community. We accomplish nothing as a grassroots organization without public participation and support. Don’t just look at RSN from a safe distance, get involved with the organization’s wellbeing. It’s about you. Marc Ash Founder, Reader Supported News Sure, I'll make a donation! Update My Monthly Donation If you would prefer to send a check: Reader Supported News PO Box 2043 Citrus Hts, CA 95611

22 July 20

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News

WE ARE NOT MAKING PROGRESS ON FUNDING! Over the past 3 days donations have fallen way off. We are getting a trickle of small donations, but it’s not moving the progress bar. We hate fundraising, you hate fundraising. Fundraising however does allow Reader Supported News to do what you expect of us and what so badly needs to be done. Bite the bullet and hit the donation link. In solidarity. / Marc Ash, Founder Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

---

RSN: William Boardman | Defund the Police State, Before It's Too Late

William Boardman, Reader Supported News
Boardman writes: "The American police state is currently making its boldest test run to date in Portland, Oregon, escalating violence and lawlessness against the peaceful population of an American city."
READ MORE

Video of Trump's Federal Officers Attacking Protesters in Portland
KOIN 6
Excerpt: "Raw video of reporter Jennifer Dowling and photojournalist Matt Rashleigh's camera showing the lead up of protesters and federal officers on July 16, 2020."

READ MORE

Demonstrators rally at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. on April 23, 2019 to protest a proposal to add a citizenship question in the 2020 census. (photo: Mandel Ngan/Getty)

Trump Wants to Strip House Seats From States Under Three-Fifths Clause
Mark Joseph Stern, Slate
Stern writes: "Donald Trump's new memorandum to exclude undocumented immigrants from the next round of congressional apportionment is morally repulsive, illegal, and impossible."
READ MORE

An immigrant child looks out from a U.S. Border Patrol bus leaving as protesters block the street outside the U.S. Border Patrol Central Processing Center in McAllen, Texas. (photo: David J. Phillip/AP)

The Trump Administration Is Detaining Immigrant Children as Young as 1 in Hotels, Sometimes for Weeks
Nomaan Merchant, Associated Press
Merchant writes: "The Trump administration is detaining immigrant children as young as 1 in hotels, sometimes for weeks, before deporting them to their home countries under policies that have effectively shut down the nation's asylum system during the coronavirus pandemic."
READ MORE

Robert Kennedy Jr. (photo: Gage Skidmore)

Another Bogus Vaccine Attack From RFK Jr.

Stuart Blume and Maurizia Mezza, The Daily Beast

Excerpt: "Across the globe, billions of people are anxiously awaiting a COVID-19 vaccine, hoping that when they have one everything will be normal again. But there are also millions who think differently."

The infamous anti-vaxxer is trying to scare people by hyping recently published data on cancer incidence and HPV vaccination in Australia.

But there are also millions who think differently. Surveys in a number of countries show that a substantial percentage of the public don’t want the vaccine, or at least are unsure about taking it. In the US, that figure is as high as 50 percent. A major reason, according to the surveys, is that some people fear possible side effects. 

It’s safe to assume it isn’t the prospect of a slight inflammation around the injection point that bothers them, nor a temporary stiffness in their arm—the only modern vaccine side effects on which there is a consensus within the scientific community.

No, straight-up vaccine skepticism—often personified by so-called anti-vaxxers—in the United States and abroad is the problem here. And now Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., perhaps the most infamous of the bunch, is trying to scare people by hyping recently published data on cancer incidence and HPV vaccination in Australia.

That in and of itself isn’t shocking given his history. But he's making a mockery of the data, and compounding larger vaccine skepticism in the midst of a global pandemic, a climate in which vaccine faith—not blind faith, but belief—could prove essential to reining in death and suffering.

A recent article by Kennedy, citing Australian data, says girls there are suffering from cervical cancer—and dying—as a result of having been immunized with the HPV vaccine Gardasil. Could this be the same effect as was seen with oral polio vaccine, perhaps the only documented case wherein a weakened (“attenuated”) virus from a vaccine became virulent and really did cause the disease it was designed to protect against?

Nope. 

Gardasil is made in a totally different way. It is inert, which is to say it contains no genetic material from the virus. Kennedy’s sensationalist claim that the vaccine can cause cancer is an attempt to prey on people’s anxieties by making abusive use of statistics. 

Gardasil was introduced in Australia 13 years ago, initially given only to girls. Women who are now 25 or 30 years old are likely to have been vaccinated, whereas older women almost certainly were not. Kennedy states that data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, a government agency, show that the rate of cervical cancer has increased by 16 percent in 25-year-olds, and 28 percent in 30-year-olds. This is the basis for the claim that Gardasil causes cancer. 

But reaching this conclusion on the basis of these numbers is highly problematic. For one thing, there’s no clear timeframe. When did rates start rising? Immediately after the first girl was vaccinated? That would be absurd. It takes anything from 10 to 30 years for infection with the virus to lead to cancer. If Gardasil were somehow linked to increased rates of cervical cancer, the effect wouldn’t yet be visible.

There’s also the question of which number we look at. The number of cases? The number of cases compared to the Australian population? If we look at the number of new cases divided by the population at risk of cervical cancer (the ‘crude rate’), in 1998 it was 7.0 per 100 000. By 2016, it had fallen to 6.2. 

Should this reduction then be attributed to Gardasil? This conclusion, too, is premature. There are too many complicating factors. The newer version of Gardasil is designed to protect against nine types of the HPV virus: the ones most likely to cause cervical cancer, as well as cancer of the anus, vulva, vagina, penis and throat. For a definitive answer to the question of how effective Gardasil is in stopping cancer, we will have to wait a few more years. In the meantime, studies have found strong evidence vaccinations—including in Australia—are reducing HPV infections and genital warts.

Perhaps most important, if Gardasil is responsible for an increase in rates of cervical cancer, this should appear in other countries, too. HPV vaccines have been widely introduced worldwide. One hundred countries have now introduced one of the three HPV vaccines available on the market. Wouldn’t we therefore expect to see rising cervical cancer rates in other countries, especially ones (like Australia) with high rates of vaccination? 

We know of no data showing that this is so. 

Finally, Kennedy says cervical cancer rates rose in young women who have supposedly been vaccinated, while cervical cancer-related mortality in (unvaccinated) older women decreased. However, comparing the  incidence rate in one group with the death rate in another is an illegitimate abuse of statistics. 

So the numbers reported by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare do not show that Gardasil cause cervical cancer. Does this mean the vaccine has no side effects? Not necessarily. 

There have been reports from a number of countries (including Denmark, Colombia, and Japan) of girls suffering a variety of strange symptoms after HPV vaccination. There has been widespread denial of any link between these symptoms and the vaccine. However, some researchers have noted consistency in the symptoms, attributing them to hard-to-diagnose autoimmune diseases. More research is needed, but the possibility of auto-immune reactions in some specific groups cannot yet be ruled out.

Still, claiming that Gardasil causes cervical cancer is wholly unjustified fearmongering. But just as with a future COVID-19 vaccine, we shouldn’t regard the existence of a vaccine as  the ultimate solution to a problem in which politics as much as people’s health is at stake.

READ MORE

Yemen's conflict has killed more than 100,000 people and created the world's worst humanitarian disaster. (photo: Anadolu)

UN Agencies Warn of More Food Shortages in War-Torn Yemen
Al Jazeera
Excerpt: "Food shortages will rise sharply in parts of war-torn Yemen in the next six months mainly because of the overall economic decline and the coronavirus pandemic that has ripped through the Arab world's poorest country, United Nations agencies have warned."
READ MORE

Forest fire in Russia. (photo: Pixabay)

Why the Next President Should Establish a Department of Climate
Allison Crimmins, Vox
Crimmins writes: "It's been a big month for new climate policy ideas in the US, with a flurry of plans out, brimming with hundreds of policy recommendations."

t’s been a big month for new climate policy ideas in the US, with a flurry of plans out, brimming with hundreds of policy recommendations. The presumptive presidential nominee Joe Biden campaign’s task force on climate change, for example, released new proposals on July 14 for reducing fossil fuel use, aiming to establish a national clean energy standard and rectify climate injustices. 

Earlier in July, the campaign also convened a new Climate Engagement Advisory Council to mobilize more people in the fight against climate change and systemic racism. And in late June, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming put out a 500-plus-page Climate Crisis Action Plan. 

But so far, none of these plans has included a key action that would strengthen the government’s ability to make these policies a reality: the creation of a new, Cabinet-level Department of Climate. 

To give these new proposals a fighting chance, the committees and councils must recognize that the executive branch is not yet properly aligned to respond to climate change, a complex problem of unmatched size and duration. 

The idea of a high-level executive body focused on climate is not radical. Countries around the world — from Austria to Australia, Pakistan to Portugal — have created dedicated departments or ministries specifically to address climate change threats. 

Establishing new Cabinet departments in the US isn’t that unusual either. In fact, more than half of the government’s 15 active departments have been formed in just the past 75 years, four within my lifetime. But among these executive-level departments and in all the hundreds of federal agencies, not one has a mission solely dedicated to the climate crisis. There isn’t even one with the word “climate” in its name. 

To meet the threat of climate change, one of the first actions of the next administration and the 177th Congress should be to create this Department of Climate. Its mission would be to mitigate global climate change, reduce America’s vulnerability to climate impacts, build resiliency to the impacts that do occur, and strengthen our nation’s infrastructure by forging a sustainable, thriving, and just economy. 

Here are three reasons why the US needs this new agency, how to do it, and why now is the time to start building one:

1) Climate change is a threat to our security — and we need a unified structure to fight it

Climate change is a critical national security challenge that will not be resolved over the course of one administration. In a report published earlier this year, the nonpartisan nonprofit Center for Climate and Security identified several major ways in which climate change puts national security at risk. These include: social and political instability due to drought and water stress, damages to military bases and infrastructure from rising seas and increased flooding, and detrimental effects on force readiness and health caused by more frequent heat waves and wildfires. 

But perhaps the greatest risk to national security is the fact that climate change threatens our health, social equity, and economy, weakening the nation’s resilience. Current and future climate impacts put our very life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness at risk. It is well past time we defend against such threats. 

When the United States faced grave security threats in the past, we rose to those challenges by reorganizing the executive branch. For instance, after World War II, the National Security Act of 1947 was enacted by Congress and signed by President Truman. The act reorganized military and intelligence branches, established the National Security Council and Central Intelligence Agency, and merged the War and Navy department into what became the Department of Defense. 

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the Department of Homeland Security was established, integrating 22 different federal agencies and offices into one unified Cabinet department. In a message to Congress on June 18, 2002, President George W. Bush wrote: “History teaches us that new challenges require new organizational structures. History also teaches us that critical security challenges require clear lines of responsibility and the unified effort of the US Government.”

Although there is currently no one department or agency focused solely on climate change, there are many people spread across the federal government working on climate-related issues. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find an agency that does not already work on some element of climate change: from monitoring current environmental conditions to projecting climate impacts, from creating innovative energy solutions to building climate-resilient communities. 

But this legion of civil servants, who have devoted their careers to combating climate change, are fragmented and lack that clear line of responsibility President Bush described as necessary to address critical security challenges. These leading experts could be convened under one broad mission, with the potential for producing unified actions and outcomes far greater than the sum of their disaggregated parts.

Just as the Department of Homeland Security promises “relentless resilience” to attacks against the United States, a Department of Climate could deploy this same mindset, ensuring the US has the foundation it needs to take on the threats climate change poses to this nation and to future generations.

2) Climate change is a threat to our health — and we need dedicated resources to respond to it 

In the US, Americans are already experiencing more frequent extreme heat days, increases in wildfires that lead to poor air quality (which likely makes people more susceptible to Covid-19), more severe storms with long-term, devastating health impacts, and longer seasons for disease-carrying mosquitoes and ticks. Rising carbon dioxide levels means longer and more severe allergy seasons and less nutritious crops. Not to mention the impact on our mental health. 

As the House Select Committee points out in its Climate Crisis Action Plan, “the United States currently lacks a comprehensive national strategy to respond to the health risks and harms of the climate crisis.” Their plan calls for Congress to strengthen such planning, placing much of the burden of action on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

However, federal health agencies’ ability to focus on climate-related health impacts is currently inadequate. This is in part because of leadership dismissive of climate change — and in part because their attention is, understandably, on the Covid-19 pandemic. And the 2018 hurricane season before that, and Zika before that, and Ebola before that. While the CDC and other health agencies are full of experts working to mitigate climate-related health threats, their priorities will always be driven by the next new global health crisis — and by each new administration’s political whims. 

A new department would not be completely immune to the same geopolitical winds that tug on other federal health agencies’ attention; but a dedicated budget and clear language in its mission mandating action on climate change would better position it against such winds. Instead of each new administration interpreting whether work on climate falls within the scope of an agency’s mission, there would be no question that addressing climate change is within the purview of the Department of Climate. 

While there are many offices or divisions across numerous agencies engaged in work related to energy or transportation, these cross-cutting topics nevertheless have Cabinet-level leadership and congressionally determined budgets to ensure their missions are met regardless of who sits in the White House. As with education, labor, or agriculture, we should have a Department of Climate so that our nation always has the clear dedication of resources it needs to concentrate on crucial issues.

The department could take the lead on addressing climate threats to human health— collaborating with CDC and other health agencies to strengthen, not further tax, our health sector — and obviate the seasonal question of whether the US is making climate change a priority or not. 

3) Climate change is a threat to equity — and we need to build the capacity to do better 

Climate change threatens our health, but it does not threaten it equally. Certain communities are disproportionately vulnerable to climate change, including children, older adults, people with pre-existing health conditions, low-income communities, certain occupational groups, Indigenous peoples, and many communities of color. 

As we see with Covid-19, discrimination leads to disproportionate rates of illnesses and deaths from environmental health hazards among Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous peoples. 

Climate change does not just exacerbate the impacts of racism, it is also caused by white supremacy, a snake eating its own tail. As Hop Hopkins wrote for the advocacy group the Sierra Club: “You can’t have climate change without sacrifice zones, and you can’t have sacrifice zones without disposable people, and you can’t have disposable people without racism.” 

And people of color— who, as the writer and podcast host Mary Annaïse Heglar points out, have faced their own existential threats for hundreds of years and have unrivaled experience building activist movements — often do not have enough seats at the table when it comes to developing or implementing environmental policy.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) work to enforce health and safety rules and pursue criminal anti-pollution cases, efforts the Biden campaign’s new environmental justice plan proposes to strengthen. But even providing more resources to these existing government structures won’t be enough to guarantee meaningful involvement of all people in actions to address climate change. We need to build out additional capacity and create more jobs in the environmental justice field. 

One way to do this is by building divisions in the Department of Climate that, in addition to helping the EPA and DOJ prosecute violators of environmental protections, work to prioritize those communities made most vulnerable to climate change and ensure diverse voices are part of the climate solution. 

By bringing in more people with social movement-building experience and new voices from communities often unheard, we could accomplish so much more — and more quickly. This is important because the world has a lot of lost time to make up for in terms of fighting climate change and systemic inequity. The threads of these two existential threats are intricately and tragically interwoven; the most effective way to unravel them both is to solve them together. 

A Department of Climate, not just working for the people disproportionately affected, but made of the people with the most expertise in social justice and the most knowledge of their communities’ unique needs and strengths, would give the US its best chance of implementing creative, long-lasting, and just solutions to climate change.

What the future could hold

The United States has faced crises in the past, as we do today, and will again. We don’t need to look very far back in history for examples of how effective federal restructuring can provide the means to meet such challenges. Try reading these lines from the 2002 Proposal to Create the Department of Homeland Security with the words “climate change” swapped in to see just how easily a similar proposal could be created for a Department of Climate: 

“Today, no single government agency has homeland security climate change as its primary mission. In fact, responsibilities for homeland security climate change are dispersed among more than 100 different government organizations. America needs a single, unified homeland security climate change structure that will improve protection against today’s threats and be flexible enough to help meet the unknown threats of the future.” 

Creating the scaffolding for such a department now would be a clear signal to our country’s youth and to the communities most at risk that they don’t have to take on the entire burden of addressing climate change themselves. And it would be a clear signal to the rest of the world that the United States is finally ready to be a leader among the global community fighting climate change.

We have the urgency of the crisis to drive us, the precedence to guide us, the blueprint to build it, and the experts to unify it— everything we need to create a response commensurate to the size of this huge task. 

READ MORE

---

Contribute to RSN

Update My Monthly Donation