20 December 20
I Cannot Believe You Get So Little Funding!
I don't understand how most readers expect you to do everything for nothing. If we don't stand behind you all we get is propaganda. Real journalism is so rare today. We all should be protecting it.
I am in my 70s and no longer working, but what you do is crucial if we ever plan on becoming a democracy finally. That's why I give every month. All take and no give back is a recipe for disaster, and we don't want to dis the stars!
Christine, RSN Reader-Supporter
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611
19 December 20
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
Bill McKibben | Our Stuff Weighs More Than All Living Things on the Planet
Bill McKibben, The New Yorker
McKibben writes: "We are necessarily occupied here each week with strategies for getting ourselves out of the climate crisis - it is the world's true Klaxon-sounding emergency."
But it is worth occasionally remembering that global warming is just one measure of the human domination of our planet. We got another reminder of that unwise hegemony this week, from a study so remarkable that we should just pause and absorb it.
A team led by Emily Elhacham, at the Weizmann Institute of Science, in Rehovot, Israel, performed a series of staggeringly difficult calculations and concluded that 2020 was the year in which the weight of “human-made mass”—all the stuff we’ve built and accumulated—exceeded the weight of biomass on the planet. That is to say, our built environment now weighs more than all the living things, including humans, on the globe. Buildings, roads, and other infrastructure, for instance, weigh about eleven hundred gigatons, while every tree and shrub, set on a scale, would weigh about nine hundred gigatons. We have nine gigatons of plastic on the planet, compared with four gigatons of animals—every whale and elephant and bee added together. The weight of living things remains relatively static, year to year, but the weight of man-made objects is doubling every twenty years. This means that most of us likely have in our minds a very different and very wrong picture of the relative size of nature and civilization. In 1900, the weight of human-made mass was three per cent of the weight of the natural world; we were a small part of the big picture. No longer. We live on Planet Stuff.
It would be easy to blame the increase in our footprint on the increase in human population, which grew rapidly in the twentieth century yet is now slowing. But that would almost certainly be wrong: recent calculations have found that the richest one per cent of human beings produce more than double the carbon dioxide than the poorest fifty per cent do; presumably, some similar ratio would apply to the volume of infrastructure and the consumption of plastic. (To get a visceral sense of the gulf between people, it’s always useful to refer back to the photographer Peter Menzel’s 1994 project, “Material World,” in which he enlisted fifteen other photographers to help him take pictures of statistically average families in dozens of countries standing in front of all their possessions. He needed a cherry picker to take a wide-enough shot to encompass the American family’s matériel.)
I actually don’t feel the need to draw any conclusions from this remarkable new fact—I just feel the need to let it settle in my mind and inform my outlook from this point on. We are an overwhelming force.
Passing the Mic
The Goldman prize may be the world’s most prestigious environmental award. It is given annually to a grassroots activist in each of the six inhabited continents. This year’s European winner is Lucie Pinson, whom the French media call “la décarboneuse de banques” for her work in getting French financial institutions to stop financing coal projects. From her post as the head of the think tank Reclaim Finance, she joined with other campaigners last week to announce a focus on stopping a dozen vast “carbon-bomb” megaprojects planned for the next few years. (Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.)
Congratulations on the Goldman prize. What were the keys to getting French banks to back away from coal?
Determination. We never gave up on our final objective: to push French banks to adopt over-all coal-exit policies. When French banks stopped supporting new coal projects and some coal companies, it was a great step but clearly not enough. So we kept exposing the gap between the banks’ climate pledges and the money that was still flowing to the coal sector, including to companies with coal-expansion plans. We kept them accountable for the impacts of their support on people’s health and on climate. We also spent a significant share of our time building a set of very specific measures that financial institutions must adopt in order to both prevent the expansion of the coal sector and support its phaseout. When you face financial giants, you soon understand the issue is not to push them to adopt a policy on coal but a robust policy on coal. Quality matters. As details matter.
Are the banks key to these “carbon bombs” you’ve helped identify around the world?
French banks have now stopped financing new coal projects but seem to remain oblivious of the climate urgency to also phase out oil and gas, starting with the obvious: stop financing expansion! BNP Paribas, Société Générale, and Crédit Agricole show up in the ranking of the twenty top global financiers of the companies behind the twelve carbon-bomb projects we’ve identified. These expansion projects alone would use up three-quarters of the total remaining carbon budget to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Our financial data show that French banks are far from walking away from companies developing the worst projects for the climate and indigenous peoples’ rights. For example, BNP Paribas, Société Générale, Crédit Agricole, and BPCE have provided close to fifty billion dollars in financing to companies developing shale hydrocarbons in the Permian Basin in the United States and in the Vaca Muerta region in Argentina, the first two even being among their fifteen largest financiers.
We’re used to Exxon and Chevron, but tell us about the French super-major oil company, Total. Is it anywhere near capitulating to climate reality?
For sure, one can see differences between Total and Exxon and Chevron. Total does better than the U.S. majors. It started addressing its anti-climate lobbying practices; it set some greenhouse-gas reduction targets; it develops more renewables. But is Total cancelling its investments in new oil and gas projects? Absolutely not. Total is expanding fracking in Texas, planning new projects in the Arctic, and, with a Chinese oil company, building the East African Crude Oil Pipeline. There is no other magical way to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions than to reduce fossil-fuel production. When investors, including Amundi, AXA, Allianz, Legal & General, BlackRock, and many others voted against the climate resolution at Total’s shareholders’ meeting this year—let’s be clear—they all trampled on their supposed support of the Paris Agreement.
Climate School
On the topic of foreign banks and climate, here’s a trenchant and fairly depressing analysis of what Standard Bank, Africa’s largest lender, means when it says that it is committed to meeting the climate goals set in the Paris climate accord.
There are fears—some well founded—that some of the ingredients for clean energy are coming from places where the abuse of workers and of human rights is endemic. Last week, the Solar Energy Industries Association asked member companies to pledge that no forced labor is used in making their products.
The new Zero Carbon Action Plan, launched this fall, is an attempt to channel academic research into actual timelines for transitioning electricity generation, transportation, industry, and buildings into zero-carbon enterprises by 2050, along with a focus on sustainable land-use and sustainable-materials management. Here’s the launch video, from Yale Law School’s Dan Esty and Columbia University’s Jeff Sachs. Meanwhile, Action for Climate Empowerment, or ACE, has released a “strategic framework” for the Biden Administration to consider as it takes power, focussed on driving climate dialogue on the local level.
As much as forty per cent of the food produced in the U.S. ends up in waste dumps or incinerators. A new consortium, which includes such heavyweights in their fields as Unilever and Starbucks, has announced plans for “repurposing any unavoidable waste” into energy by using anaerobic digesters.
Ice cover keeps melting—it’s been an absurdly warm year in the Arctic—and a new study from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration makes clear that this trend will not end anytime soon. “Nearly everything in the Arctic, from ice and snow to human activity, is changing so quickly that there is no reason to think that in 30 years much of anything will be as it is today,” one of the report’s authors told Henry Fountain, of the Times.
I wrote recently about the need for ad agencies and P.R. firms to stop collaborating with Big Oil; in an incisive Bloomberg essay, Eric Roston calls for these creative companies, and also law firms, to, at the very least, measure and disclose the size of their carbon portfolios. Such openness might “help guide companies with enormous marketing budgets away from firms who make money promoting the interests of clients burning up the world’s future.” Meanwhile, here’s an interview with a longtime associate of mine, Jamie Henn, about the emerging Clean Creatives campaign.
A free book, “The Perennial Turn,” has emerged, in large measure, from the revolutionary agricultural thinking at the Land Institute, in Kansas. This volume covers some of the institute’s work in trying to produce perennial wheat and also features broader essays on the climate-crisis era: the editor, Bill Vitek, contributes a chapter called “Dandelions Are Divine.”
With this year’s Conference of the Parties to the global climate talks postponed, owing to the pandemic, campaigners are deprived of the long-standing ritual of awarding the Fossil of the Day to the country doing the most to block progress. But the veteran campaigner Kevin Buckland decided to keep up the tradition anyway.
Concerned Health Professionals of New York and Physicians for Social Responsibility this week released the seventh edition of their compendium of studies on the dangers of fracking. One of the editors, the scientist and activist Sandra Steingraber, said, “I’m reminded that our first edition, in 2014, was slim enough to staple at the top. This monograph’s burgeoning girth simply reflects the state of the accumulating evidence. The scientific case against fracking is now deep and wide.”
For my money, The New Yorker is one of the strands of societal fabric that has managed, just barely, to hold us together these past four years. If you subscribe, it underwrites not just a great stable of writers but also this free newsletter.
Scoreboard
This year, Venice tested a huge, and hugely expensive, seawater barrier that been under construction for nearly two decades and was designed to prevent floods in the magnificent city center. Critics have warned that it is too small to stand up to the coming rise in sea level caused by climate change, and it seems to be running into trouble already.
Big Tech increasingly claims to be climate-concerned, but, as a new report makes clear, you wouldn’t know that from looking at its teams of lobbyists. Amazon, for instance, employs a hundred and fifteen of them, exactly one of whom is tasked with helping pass new climate laws.
A nascent effort to pressure T.I.A.A., the retirement fund for teachers and university professors, to divest from fossil fuels got a big boost from the faculty at one of the premier State University of New York campuses, in New Paltz. Advocates are now taking the fight across New York and the entire country.
A fascinating new study attempts to measure how much heat-trapping methane escapes from the pipes of major American cities. The worst leakage is in Indianapolis; the least is in New York City.
Jared Kushner. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Jared Kushner Helped Create Shell Trump Campaign Company That Secretly Paid Family Members, Report Says
Graeme Massie, The Independent
Massie writes: "Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner allegedly created a shell company that secretly paid the president's family members and spent more than $600 million, a report says."
The payments to the Trump family and top advisors through the company helped shield financial details from the public, according to Business Insider.
Use of the company, incorporated as American Made Media Consultants Corporation and American Made Media Consultants LLC, reportedly allowed the president and his family to bypass federally required financial disclosures.
Campaign finance records show the Trump campaign and its committee at the Republican National Committee, spent $617 million from their $1.26bn coffers through the company, according to Insider.
Mr Kushner allegedly helped establish the company in 2018 and Mr Trump’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump was installed as president, vice president Mike Pence’s nephew John Pence as vice president, and Trump campaign CFO Sean Dollman as treasurer and secretary.
Some of Mr Trump’s advisors said that they did not know how the shell company worked, and did not know of Lara Trump and John Pence’s involvement.
"They like to say they don't know, but that's not true," one person familiar with the company told Insider.
"What they wanted was excuses so they could blame other people. If they thought that, why did they keep using it?”
A spokesman for Mr Kushner and the Trump campaign did not return a request for comment.
"Lara Trump and John Pence resigned from the AMMC board in October 2019 to focus solely on their campaign activities, however, there was never any ethical or legal reason why they could not serve on the board in the first place. John and Lara were not compensated by AMMC for their service as board members," Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh told Insider.
Mr Dollman declined to comment, according to Insider.
The Federal Elections Committee can hand out fines to campaigns for any breaches of election law.
Joe Biden. (photo: Frank Franklin II/AP)
Progressives, Trying to Sway Biden, Send List With 100 Potential Foreign Policy Hires
Alex Ward, Vox
Ward writes: "Progressive foreign policy groups advising President-elect Joe Biden's transition team are planning to send the team a glitzy booklet featuring profiles of 100 people they want serving in the administration - the greatest effort yet by progressives to sway Biden's handling of global affairs."
“There’s no good reason for the president-elect not to hire all of them,” one of the lead organizers told Vox.
During the campaign, left-leaning foreign policy organizations held regular sessions with top members of Biden’s team — including Antony Blinken, who has now been tapped as secretary of state — about how the nominee could pursue a more progressive foreign policy. Their advice included suggestions like reducing the Pentagon’s budget, repealing the 2001 military force authorization that allows the war on terror to persist, and ending support for governments that abuse human rights.
Getting more progressives into the White House, State Department, and other key agencies is seen as a way to ensure their advice turns into action. “Personnel is policy,” as many often say in the nation’s capital, meaning the views and priorities of the people you put in place to craft policy impact policy outcomes. It’s hard to have a progressive foreign policy, the thinking goes, without progressives actually running foreign policy.
Which is why a consortium of progressive foreign policy groups created the digital booklet for Biden’s transition team, a move Politico first reported.
“There’s no good reason for the president-elect not to hire all of them”
The effort was coordinated by the Center for International Policy’s Yasmine Taeb and Common Defense’s Alex McCoy. They each spent weeks coordinating among various organizations to identify 100 consensus picks to pitch to Biden’s transition team.
The proposed staffers are 65 percent women and people of color, and they come from left-leaning think tanks, activist organizations, and congressional offices.
While the drafters told reporters that none of the people on the list would have corporate ties, a draft booklet showed at least two of them had some affiliation with Goldman Sachs. The final list, they’ve assured me, won’t include those people.
McCoy is confident in the recommendations. “There’s no good reason for the president-elect not to hire all of them,” he told me. Biden now “has a compelling slate of options for staffing the national security agencies. The existence of this slate proves that anyone who claims there is no choice but to rely on personnel with more problematic views in order to staff these agencies with competent experts is wrong.”
“These are people who have a clear track record of commitment to the cause of fulfilling Joe Biden’s campaign promise to end the forever wars,” McCoy continued. “They’re people who have been foresighted about the previous mistakes in US foreign policy, which Joe Biden rightly wants to avoid repeating.”
It’s unclear how many of the people on this list might actually get jobs in the Biden administration or how senior they might be. But two names on the list — Matt Duss, Sen. Bernie Sanders’s national security adviser and a leading progressive foreign policy proponent, and Trita Parsi, a longtime advocate for a softer US approach toward Iran — will likely garner the most attention and controversy.
Duss was specifically recommended to either be the deputy national security adviser, potentially making him one of the top foreign policy officials in the government, or a senior adviser to Blinken at the State Department. Parsi, meanwhile, was put forward as the top National Security Council official for Iran policy, which would put him at the center of major decisions on America’s handling of the Islamic Republic.
Their years-long focus of prioritizing diplomacy toward Iran will surely worry proponents of a harder-line policy both in and out of government. However, the positions Duss and Parsi were recommended for don’t require Senate confirmation, so they would be eligible to serve if Biden wants them to.
Put together, the list of 100 names shows how seriously progressives have taken their effort to influence the Biden administration’s foreign policy. Whether or not the incoming president takes their advice and staffing suggestions could prove an early fault line in the growing intra-left fight over the future of America’s place in the world.
Central American asylum seekers wait as U.S. Border Patrol agents take groups of them into custody in June near McAllen, Texas. (photo: John Moore/Getty Images)
Immigrant Families Are Being Deported Without Their Asylum Claims Heard Lawfully, Advocates Say
Adolfo Flores, BuzzFeed
Flores writes: "Federal immigration officials on Friday were preparing to deport a group of immigrant children and their parents who advocates said were unlawfully denied the opportunity to seek asylum."
"These are refugees who are being sent back to the same situation they fled from," an immigration attorney told BuzzFeed News.
The families, who have been detained by ICE for more than a year, were subjected to Trump administration policies that have since been blocked by federal courts. Attorneys and advocates want these immigrants to go through a new process, without these policies being applied to them
The children and their parents had been shielded from deportation by a temporary stay of removal from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, but the court vacated it on Monday.
On Friday, six families from Guatemala and six families from El Salvador were taken to separate airports to be deported by ICE, said Shalyn Fluharty, an attorney with Proyecto Dilley, which offers legal services to detained families. Some of the families were pulled from the plane at the last minute while asylum officers reviewed their claims, but at least one family was deported.
"They have been denied a fair process and as a result of this unlawful conduct these families, mothers and children, all face death or unspeakable violence," Fluharty told BuzzFeed News. "These are very brave mothers who have done everything in their power in the face of unbelievable circumstances to fight for the safety of their children."
ICE did not return a request for comment.
The exact number of families who could be deported was unclear on Friday because attorneys aren't sure how many people had been removed earlier in the day.
One of the policies the families were subjected to was the asylum transit ban, which required immigrants to first seek protection in another country through which they traveled before asking for refuge in the US. In July, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also blocked the rule, but the ruling didn't help any of the thousands of immigrants, like these families, who had already been subjected to the transit ban.
Under the transit ban policy, those who crossed through a third country, such as Mexico or Guatemala, before arriving at the US southern border were denied asylum during their credible fear interviews, an initial step in the asylum process. After being denied the chance to be screened for asylum, these children and their families were subjected to expedited removal, which allows the government to deport undocumented immigrants without a hearing in front of an immigration judge.
Federal courts have said they don't have the authority to weigh in on expedited removals. As a result, judges can't stop the deportation of these families, even though they've found that the policies leading to their deportations are illegal.
The asylum transit ban wasn't the only policy the families were subjected to that was later vacated or deemed illegal by federal courts.
The families had their credible fear interviews conducted by a CBP officer instead of an asylum officer. An analysis from the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan immigration think tank, from May 2019 to May 2020 found that CBP agents approved just 37% of credible fear interviews, compared to 64% among asylum officers.
The interview was also conducted within 48 hours of arriving at a detention center, the result of a USCIS directive that credible fear interviews be conducted as quickly as possible after 24 hours of arrival to the facility.
A federal judge in Washington, DC, blocked CBP officers from conducting credible fear interviews, calling it illegal because agents do not receive the same level of training as asylum officers working for USCIS. The directive to rush immigrants through the interviews was vacated in March after a federal court concluded that Ken Cuccinelli, who issued the directive, had not been lawfully appointed to his role as acting director at US Citizenship and Immigration Services at the time.
In some cases, asylum officers conducted credible fear interviews using a lesson plan that was also vacated by the DC District Court in October.
Allison Herre, managing attorney at Proyecto Dilley, said the families are scared about the prospect of being sent back to the countries they fled.
"These are refugees who are being sent back to the same situation they fled from," Herre told BuzzFeed News.
In some cases, these immigrant children and their parents are going back to an even worse situation, according to Herre. Some families are waiting to go back to nothing because their homes were destroyed by hurricanes that devastated Central America in November, she said.
A father from Haiti currently detained with his family at ICE's Berks County Residential Center in Leesport, Pennsylvania, said they left their home because of government attacks directed at them for speaking out against human rights abuses.
"We were attacked, beaten and barely escaped," the father said in a statement provided by Aldea — the People’s Justice Center, which offers free legal services to immigrant families detained by ICE in Pennsylvania. "We came to the US thinking, 'This is where we will find refuge,’ only to be thrown in prison for more than eight months.
"We are human beings too," he said. "Our children are human beings too and should not have to suffer like this."
Juan David, an 11-year-old at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, said in a statement he has spent more than 15 months in detention.
"They asked me why I am afraid to return to my country. I’m afraid that the gangsters will hurt me, that they will kill me and my mom," Juan David said.
Police make an arrest in Boston. (photo: Keiko Hiromi/AFLO/REX/Shutterstock)
Boston Officer Caught Saying He May Have Hit Protesters With Police Vehicle
Associated Press
Excerpt: "Police and prosecutors in Boston are investigating after body camera footage showed officers pushing protesters, pepper-spraying crowds and one officer talking about hitting protesters with a police vehicle."
A sergeant was placed on administrative leave after the leak of the footage captured during demonstrations in May after the killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis.
The Boston protests on 31 May were mostly peaceful until nighttime, when vandalism was reported. More than 50 people were arrested, 18 bystanders were hospitalized and nine officers were treated for injuries, Boston.com reported.
The videos posted on Friday by The Appeal, an online news outlet, showed officers pushing nonviolent demonstrators to the ground, spraying pepper spray on people and into crowds, and one officer saying he may have hit people with a car.
An attorney for the protesters has requested the video.
Police commissioner William Gross said in a statement he ordered an investigation as soon as the videos were brought to his attention.
“I have placed a sergeant involved in this incident on administrative leave and I will take any additional action as necessary at the conclusion of the investigation,” Gross said. “I want to encourage people to bring these matters to our attention so that we can investigate them appropriately.”
Mayor Marty Walsh said the footage was difficult to watch and that he hoped to get answers through the investigation.
“We never want to see police officers using more force than necessary, even when tensions are high,“ he said.
A spokesperson for Suffolk county district attorney Rachael Rollins said she was also investigating.
A rally in Puerto Rico. (photo: Reuters)
Puerto Ricans Voted for Statehood (Again). What Happens Now?
The Intercept
Excerpt: "On Election Day last month, 52 percent of Puerto Rican voters answered 'yes' to the following question: 'Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a state?'"
In last month’s election, the island voted to end its territorial status. But the referendum looks unlikely to change anything.
But the result of the nonbinding referendum has gotten little attention in Washington since then. After all, it’s hardly the first time a statehood vote on the island has been answered in the affirmative. Is this time any different?
On this week’s show, guest host Vanessa A. Bee talks to Julio Ricardo Varela, the founder of LatinoRebels.com, and Angelo Guisado, a civil rights lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights. They examine the past and present of Puerto Rico as a colony and U.S. territory and how that history should inform our understanding of votes like this one.
Sen. Mitch McConnell: They plan to make the District of Columbia a state — that would give them two new Democratic senators — Puerto Rico a state, that’d give them two more new Democratic senators. So this is a full-bore socialism.
[Musical interlude.]
Vanessa A. Bee: While millions of Americans were casting their ballots in the 2020 election to decide the next president, residents in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico were voting on an even more fundamental question: Should the island finally become a U.S. state? This is Deconstructed, and I’m Vanessa A. Bee, filling in for Ryan Grim this week.
It’s common for people to lump Puerto Rican statehood and D.C. statehood in with each other — and there are some parallels. Like Puerto Rico, D.C. is more populous than the states of Vermont and Wyoming, yet it enjoys no meaningful representation in Congress. And, like Puerto Rico, this lack of independence has often put the District at the mercy of petty battles for political clout.
Consider former Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who was elected to represent a district in southeastern Utah. To the dismay of D.C.’s liberal city council, this conservative politician spent a significant chunk of 2015 and 2016 obstructing the city’s decision to legalize cannabis and to authorize euthanasia in certain circumstances.
Newscaster: Chafetz threatened Mayor Bowser with jail if she allowed legal marijuana. She allowed it.
Mayor Muriel Bowser: I have a lot of things to do here in the District of Columbia; me being in jail wouldn’t be a good thing.
VB: Meanwhile, Puerto Ricans reeling from Hurricane Maria could only watch as Senate Republicans held up the passage of a robust disaster aid bill for weeks.
On top of that, the economic fate of the island hinges on a bankruptcy-like process established by Congress, called PROMESA.
President Barack Obama: Even though this is not a perfect bill, it at least moves us in the right direction.
Newscaster: Dos años han pasado ya de esas palabras.
Newscaster: Qué indica la ley PROMESA?
VB: People born in Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens. They receive a social security number at birth and are eligible for an American passport. They can relocate to the continental U.S. and work freely. They do not have to deal with the barriers that apply to most immigrants.
And yet, their citizenship is conditional. Even if Puerto Ricans on the island wanted to vote for the President of the United States last November 3, the Constitution forbids it. And despite counting 3.1 million residents — so that’s more than the two Dakotas, Wyoming, and Vermont combined — Puerto Rico is not entitled to two voting senators or a commensurate number of House representatives. And, as we get into later in this episode, this is far from being the only tangible consequence of the island’s status as a territory of the United States.
Which brings us back to the big fundamental question that faced Puerto Rico on November 3: Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a state? Yes or no.
Hari Sreenivasan: On Election Day, Puerto Ricans voted in favor of becoming the 51st state. The vote was non-binding and would need the approval of Congress to push statehood forward.
Jenniffer González: The people of Puerto Rico directly voted, and in an absolute majority, more than 52 percent, to pursue statehood.
VB: This result sets the wheels in motion for the island’s governor to appoint a commission, which in turn will develop a transition plan for Congress’ and the President’s review.
That same day, these voters also handed a narrow victory to gubernatorial candidate Pedro Pierluisi, from the New Progressive Party.
While his opponent, Carlos Delgado, favored the status quo, Pierluisi is one of Puerto Rico’s fiercest advocates for statehood. Here he is in February 2015, introducing a statehood bill before Congress. At the time, Pierluisi was Puerto Rico’s resident commissioner, which is a non-voting seat in the House of Representatives.
Pedro Pierluisi: The bipartisan bill I’m introducing today flows from, and builds upon, the 2012 referendum and the federal appropriation, enacted in response to that referendum.
In other words, this bill is being filed now, because the strategic foundation is firmly in place. Every action I take is designed to advance to statehood cause, because it is beyond dispute that territory status is the main source of Puerto Rico’s grave economic and social problems.
VB: There’s no question that the United States’ treatment of Puerto Rico as a territory of second-class citizens has caused very tangible damage. But what must come next may not be as simple as deciding yes or no on statehood, as both Sen. Mitch McConnell and Governor-elect Pierluisi suggest.
In fact, November 3 marked Puerto Rico’s sixth referendum on the question of statehood. Previous attempts have been mired in controversy and vigorously opposed. For example, the 2017 referendum drew a 97 percent majority for statehood. Pretty clear-cut, right? Actually, voter participation was abysmal that year, thanks to a very effective, very organized boycott.
Participation was higher this time around but opponents of the referendum have argued that the question was stacked; that it may not have been obvious to voters that a “no” on statehood was in fact a “yes” on independence or some alternative status. Opponents say the latter deserves consideration.
That distinction between D.C. and Puerto Rico matters a great deal. No one is seriously arguing that the nation’s capital should become an independent nation. Instead, the concerns over self-rule truly boil down for D.C. to statehood or no statehood.
Not so with Puerto Rico. And it all comes down to the island’s history.
Joining me today is Angelo Guisado, a civil rights lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the author of “It’s Time to Talk About Cuba. And Puerto Rico, Too,” an essay published in Issue 27 of Current Affairs Magazine.
Angelo, welcome to the show…
Angelo Guisado: Thank you for having me.
VB: To understand why Puerto Rico faces a much more complicated question than statehood or no statehood. I think it’s important to grapple a bit with its relationship with the rest of the country. In your recent essay, you argue that Puerto Rico gives us a sense of what Cuba might look like today, if it was still under American control. What is the context in which Puerto Rico becomes a U.S. territory?
AG: Puerto Rico became a territory, much like Cuba fell under United States monitorship and dominion, through the 1898 Spanish-American War, in which the United States took possession of Guam, had dominion over the Philippines, and, of course, Cuba and Puerto Rico.
Since 1898, things get a little complicated. It’s kind of a labyrinthine route that they got to where they are today. And I’ll start at the turn of the century, 1901, and the Foraker Act, which basically established a civil government in Puerto Rico. It followed into what was known as, and is still known as, the insular cases, which is a set of legal cases that made it to the Supreme Court at the turn of the century.
Now, this was the same court that had decided Plessy versus Ferguson, upholding separate but equal, and was led by the same government — McKinley, later; Taft, later; Teddy Roosevelt — that put primacy on the sort of outward expansion and manifest destiny of a white American body politic. And that’s precisely the sort of reasoning that the court looked into, in the turn of the century, to establish the Puerto Rico itself was a colony, that the Constitution doesn’t necessarily apply there, and that it was going to take a different path for Puerto Rico than it had for Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Alaska, and Hawaii even.
And so its establishment as a territory, you know, starting from the turn of the century, you know, we move into the World War I-era, and we see that the United States grants Puerto Rican individuals the right to U.S. citizenship. But the 1917 bill, which was known as the Jones–Shafroth Act, was really not a lot more than a vehicle to draft Puerto Rican men into the American army.
In 1922, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case called Balzac v. Porto Rico, that held that even though Congress had granted Puerto Ricans the right to citizenship, the Constitution didn’t fully apply — only such fundamental rights. And the court issued a decision by Chief Justice Taft, who, as I mentioned, was formerly president, but he was also the governor of the Philippines and the governor of Cuba, and so he brought into it his very manifest destiny-United States imperial sort of taint into the decision itself, which held that Puerto Rico itself was an unincorporated territory, which basically means that unlike Hawaii and Alaska, and eventually Oklahoma, and New Mexico, Puerto Rico didn’t have the full panoply of rights afforded to it.
And so the Supreme Court signaled in the 20s, that it was content to let Puerto Rico stay in the sort of limbo, which is basically the same colonial relationship we’ve had with it ever since.
VB: And from the outset, Congress makes it clear that it sees Puerto Rico as a source of extraction, right? You’ve written about some of the laws that Congress initially passed to advantage corporations on the mainland without much care for the handicaps that those laws place on Puerto Rico. Can you tell us a little bit about that?
AG: Absolutely. You know, before the imposition of the American Navy and Army into the Spanish colonies at the time, Puerto Rico enjoyed a fairly diverse agricultural economy. And as soon as America got its hands on Puerto Rico, it used it as an extractive sugar plantation, at one point sending over half of all production to the United States from Puerto Rico. It only got more inimical going forward. You see, in the 1910’s, or 1920, Congress passed what is known as the Merchant Marine Act, now we refer to it as the Jones Act. But it’s basically a requirement that any imported goods must come from an American ship, from an American port, carrying an all American crew. And that has the effect of making imports and dramatically more expensive for Puerto Rico; goods are marked up beyond measure.
Congress made it even worse in the 1970s, after enacting what was called Operation Bootstrap. They passed what was called Section 936, which was a tax break that allowed American companies to have offices, production facilities, what have you, in Puerto Rico, without having to pay any taxes that would redound to the benefit of Puerto Rico. It was essentially turning it into an offshore tax haven for major corporations. In fact, many of those industries, specifically pharmaceutical, Congress just allowed a rapacious industry that took out all of the resources and labor from Puerto Rico without ever paying anything back, which is one of the reasons why Puerto Rico’s cupboard is so bare to begin with, and I’m sure we’ll talk about that going forward.
VB: Yeah. So during that time, who is actually governing the islands on a day-to-day basis? I mean, do Puerto Ricans get to elect any officials?
AG: Yeah, they got to elect the governor in 1950, for the first time ever. Congress granted some protections and measures of self-determinacy to Puerto Rico, allowing them to elect their first governor ever. His name was Luis Muñoz Marín; he was extremely compromised by the U.S. government and was nothing more than a U.S. imperial-capitalist puppet. However, ever since then, Puerto Ricans have the right to elect their own governor. They just recently elected a governor, Pedro Pierluisi. He’s with the New Progressive Party, he won by a fraction of a percent or a percent or two, and he’s with the pro-statehood party.
Of course, also, Puerto Rico is granted one non-voting resident commissioner of Puerto Rico. Her name is Jenniffer González. The position has some influence, but, of course, it’s non-voting and Puerto Ricans recognize that they have no real representation in Congress. And, of course, those on the island cannot vote for president either.
VB: So to kind of go back in time a little bit, we know that Cuba eventually rebels against the American Empire with Fidel Castro at the helm of the revolution. Around that time — again, mid 20th century — several former colonies of the West are similarly emancipating. But what about Puerto Rico? Is there a movement opposing the American government during that time?
AG: Absolutely. In fact, it was led by Pedro Albizu Campos, former Harvard Law School valedictorian, who was mercilessly terrorized by the United States government. He started out labor organizing, doubling minimum wage for farmers in El Campo. He went on to radicalize and start his own Nationalist Party and the U.S. government meted out some really unfortunate and disturbing crimes against him and the movement itself.
In the late 1940s and 1950s, Campos and a bunch of other national leaders decided to strike; they thought that the time was right to make a move, an uprising. Uprisings were planned all across the island of Puerto Rico. But, of course, the United States government had, through subversive means, covert means, undermined the Nationalist Party. It had spies; it had dossiers, two-million-long pages. The FBI and the insular police force on the island were really able to root out and stamp out the nationalist uprising before it happened.
It got worse from there. Some uprisings were planned in 1950; the United States government responded by sending 4000 National Guard troops. They sent 10 P-47 United States fighter planes, dropping 500-pound bombs over two separate cities, flattening one to dust. It’s the first and only time that the United States government has bombed its own citizens.
Tons more died by a barrage of bullets. Campos himself was interrogated, imprisoned, and tortured on multiple instances. He eventually died due to radiation poisoning imposed by the U.S. government. It wasn’t until Che gave a speech at the UN and he was seen by a Cuban doctor that he was able to determine that it was radiation poisoning, which was making him so sick. He didn’t last very long in U.S. custody.
Che Guevara at the U.N.: Expresamos nuestra solidaridad al pueblo de Puerto Rico y su gran líder, Albizu Campos es un símbolo de la América todavía irredenta pero indómita.
VB: So if we fast forward several decades, obviously in 2020, Puerto Rico is not free. Far from it — since 2016, it has been governed in part by an oversight board that was formed out of a now-infamous statute named PROMESA. Now this law had bipartisan support, from the playwright Lin-Manuel Miranda to President Obama. And PROMESA means “promise” in English, which sounds like it should be the kind of law that does good things. But it hasn’t quite worked out that way for Puerto Ricans, right?
What is PROMESA? And what is this board now?
AG: PROMESA is a 2016 law that accounts for the fact that because Puerto Rico is a colony, and not a state, its debts cannot be discharged through chapters 9 or 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. And I’ll save you all the bankruptcy law talk, because nobody’s here to hear that. Essentially, it is a promise. And it’s a promise that American banks are going to be paid before any services are afforded to the Puerto Rican residents. It was a measure that sought to account for the fact that, as was the custom in the 1800s under the Monroe Doctrine, that islanders and Caribbean subjects are unable to govern themselves, and they need oversight from the infinite wisdom of the United States government. And it’s bullshit.
Essentially, PROMESA allowed the United States government to appoint members to a fiscal oversight board, which has then hired McKinsey to consult and oversee, which has amounted to an implementation of rampant austerity measures. It’s caused the cuts to pensions of over 65,000 retirees, nearly 300 public schools are closed, they have privatized nearly every agency imaginable that they’ve been able to get their hands on. If they haven’t, they certainly have plans to do so soon. The board is appointed by the President. There’s five or six members: some lawyers, some consultants, all capitalists.
And, you know, as Judge Torruella, may he rest in peace, called for an economic boycott, he denounced PROMESA as the most denigrating, disrespectful, anti-democratic colonial act the United States has ever perpetrated against the people of Puerto Rico. And for an island that has been bombed by the United States military that has been subject to biochemical poisoning after what they did in Vieques, and being frankly, abandoned after two of the worst hurricanes in recent memory, that’s really saying something.
And from what I gather, Puerto Ricans are definitely not asking for a better control board. What they’re asking for is the right to self-determination. They’re asking for the right to be on equal footing, and they’re asking for the right to an end of the colonial-subject relationship.
VB: You’ve argued that if we’re curious about what Puerto Rico could have been and could still be, if it weren’t essentially a colony of the United States, that we could look to Cuba. What do you mean by that?
AG: I mean that the United States has prioritized, or attempted to prioritize, certain rights to economic liberty and certain rights to expression. Obviously, those aren’t meted out on equal hands, considering what the United States did in Puerto Rico, imprisoning thousands of individuals, torturing and executing political dissidents there, abroad, and even within their own country.
What I’m saying is that Cuba, instead of focusing on rights to economic liberty and expression, has instead chosen to focus on rights to dignity: the right to have healthcare, the right to receive an education. Michael Parenti, in a famous speech, detailed in incredible detail, the story of villagers who had never seen a doctor before. You know, in the 1940s, up in the Sierra Maestra, you had to carry the ill a day or two to the nearest village to see a doctor. And I cannot express what Cuba would have looked like if it weren’t for the revolution, because people, you know, may still be illiterate, may still have had to walk by foot to carry a person to a medical clinic.
What I argue in the article is that Cuba, by prioritizing dignity rights has been able to raise the standard of living throughout the country in a way that few other countries who subscribe to capitalist regimes have been able to. And what I’m saying about Puerto Rico, is that had the nationalist uprising been able to succeed, it would not have been crippled and strangled by an American imperialist influence that has continued to privatize and sell off Puerto Rican assets; it’s caused tremendous flight from the island. It’s caused the medical system to suffer irreparably. And when you look to Cuba, of course, it’s a poor Caribbean nation — all Caribbean nations are because of imperial and colonial practice — however, Cuba, especially when you look at how it’s been able to handle the virus, has been able to succeed magnificently in rising the standard of living: unemployment is low, the education rates are still on par with nearly every developed nation, and that they best America in a number of metrics, particularly in medicine.
And my point was that Puerto Rico has the opportunity to decide what it wants to do with its future. And it would strike me as profoundly hypocritical to merely succumb to the American desire to see it become a state for nothing other than the ability to gain two Senate seats. I think Puerto Ricans themselves have the opportunity to say this is our time to decide whether we want to continue implementing austerity measures, whether we want to continue stripping pension rights, whether we want to continue paying secured creditors $1 on the dollar while our citizens suffer.
VB: Angelo, thank you so much for joining us today.
AG: Thank you for having me.
[Musical interlude.]
VB: That was Angelo Guisado from the Center for Constitutional Rights, with some of the complex history that underlies Puerto Rico’s present status as a U.S. territory. This brings us to this year’s referendum on statehood. What does it mean for the island’s future? Is Puerto Rico now closer to statehood? And is that the right outcome?
To talk about this, and more, I am joined by Julio Ricardo Varela, the founder of latinorebels.com, and co-host of the podcast, “In The Thick.”
Thank you for joining us, Julio.
Julio Ricardo Varela: Thank you so much for having me.
VB: So on November 3, Puerto Rican voters were presented with the question of whether the island should become a state. You opposed this measure, and I want to hear why in a moment, but I think it’d be helpful if you could give us some historical context for this vote. This was the sixth referendum on this topic since 1967, and the third in eight years. Why has the question remained unresolved despite this large tally of attempts?
JRV: Let me just clarify, I don’t oppose the measure. As a journalist, I oppose the strategy of the plebiscite in general, and it kind of gets to your question as to why are we having a sixth non-binding plebiscite, which are actually just popularity contests.
If you really start looking at the history of these plebiscites, which, to be honest with you, have no legal binding. Congress doesn’t have to do anything, the Department of Justice, they’ve been on record to say: We’re not going to do anything. It’s just a lot of political posturing.
And what it really is is that they’ve been sort of formed because of the colonial parties of Puerto Rico. And you know, Puerto Rico is one of the only places that has two main political parties that are based on political status. And there’s been a two-party system since the 60s: One, the Populares, even though the Populares started in the 50s, at the start of the Commonwealth — and people can call it a colony, I like to call it an island colony — they’re the ones that defend the Commonwealth status; then the New Progressive Party, the Progresistas, kind of came as sort of this pro-statehood party that has been around since the 60s.
It’s basically statehood-ers versus status quo-ers. The Independence Party has sort of been seen as sort of an outsider and not a significant player. So when you start looking at the last 50 years of these plebiscites, and the first one, I believe, was in ’68, ’67. And then the next one was in the mid-90s, or early 90s, and then you have a couple more, and then there’s like three in the last eight years, nothing’s really happened. I mean, what has happened?
I think my opposition to all this is more about how the debate on status is actually ingrained in political parties in Puerto Rico, and that it’s in the political interest of these parties to maintain this debate, because you pay consultants, you message, you know what I mean? It’s like your entire party is based on a political status. So you’re going to do everything you can to push that.
VB: This time around, more than 1.1 million residents voted on an island of about 3 million people living there, and about 623,000 came out in favor of statehood. That seems to signal that even if these parties are using the process for cynical ends, people sincerely care, and have opinions, and are repeatedly taking time out of their lives to vote on this question. What needs to happen for these results to be binding? And does that actually make sense at this point? Or is Puerto Rico not necessarily ready to vote “yea” or “nay” on statehood, in your opinion?
JRV: Well, the thing is, first of all, it depends who you talk to. There’s plenty of pro-statehood proponents who will say that this vote is valid, and that it’s democratic, that people should pay attention. OK. But my question that I always raise about this, and no one seems to have this answer, so let me give you an example.
For example, New Jersey, right? Take the state of New Jersey that voted for legalization of marijuana, right, on Election Day, right? So people went and voted, and guess what? Boom, marijuana is legal in New Jersey?
VB: Mhmm.
JRV: OK. So there is an outcome. People voted in Puerto Rico for statehood, 52 percent, what’s happened? No, seriously, what has happened in a month? You don’t have the U.S. Congress doing anything. You have Joe Biden saying that he personally supports statehood, but he’s still for self-determination and wants all the people of Puerto Rico to decide for themselves. It’s frustrating statehood-ers. But what I tell statehood-ers is power in American politics now in the 21st century, is never given to you. Is there a statehood movement in Puerto Rico that is actually mobilizing Puerto Ricans, at the level of, you know, the movement for racial justice, you know what I mean?
It’s like, if you want statehood, where is the proof? Because all you have is a non-binding plebiscite that nobody — to be honest with you — nobody in D.C. is talking about. And even if you look at the runoffs for Georgia, and you look at Jon Ossoff, who, you know, people are saying, “Well, if Democrats take over, there will be statehood for Puerto Rico.” And recently, just a couple of days ago, one of the more prominent legislators, former Congressman out of Illinois, who’s Puerto Rican, Luis Gutiérrez, went after Jon Ossoff, because Jon Ossoff was, “I’m all for statehood of Puerto Rico, to the point that Jon Ossoff had to talk to Luis Gutiérrez,” and kind of tone down his position.
So you have Puerto Ricans on the island that vote for a non-binding plebiscite that no one’s paying attention to in D.C., and then you have Puerto Ricans in the mainland who actually have voting power, who actually can pressure their elected officials to call and say, “Hey, I want statehood in Puerto Rico.” And what’s happened, and this is the sad thing about all this, is that these pro-statehood factions in the island would rather lambast people like me, who are kind of saying, “If you really want statehood for Puerto Rico, then start making allyship with the diaspora in the mainland, Puerto Ricans on the mainland, who actually have voting power, who actually could advocate for you.” I’m still waiting for the massive statehood movement in Puerto Rico.
VB: I want to take a step back, because as you said, a lot of progressives, their instincts may be to think that statehood makes a lot of sense, because that’s sort of what D.C. is asking for for itself. And maybe that’s the best way for the island to sort of stop being treated as the ugly stepsister in the way that it is now. But I think some of the drawbacks of statehood may be unclear to people. And that’s further muddled by the fact that, as you said, the governor-elect, you know, he lives on the mainland, Pedro Pierluisi is for it —
JRV: No, he lives — he’s back on the island. But he was the former resident commissioner in D.C., non-voting, but he’s back in Puerto Rico.
VB: So he’s back in Puerto Rico, the new Progressive Party supports him. And then you have someone like Jenniffer González, right, who’s a Republican, and is the island’s single non-voting member in the House of Representatives. She’s also in favor of statehood. Can you help us understand what is so appealing about statehood to that camp? And then kind of outline some of the drawbacks of that status?
JRV: Well, there’s so many things to break this down.
First of all, when you’ve been a colony for centuries, you have a colonial mindset. I mean, there’s a term, having studied Puerto Rican history and literature, called insularismo, insularism, right? Literally being insular in terms of an island. And we’re talking for centuries. Puerto Rico has been a colony since forever. It’s one of the oldest colonies, if you really think about it, in the world. You start creating a colonial mindset, right, and there’s a colonial class, and there’s people who will want to exploit our relationship with the United States.
And this notion of us being equal American citizens is a farce. It’s a farce. Citizenship in Puerto Rico, U.S. citizenship in Puerto Rico, if you really start looking at the Supreme Court, and it’s all based on racist, insular cases [laughs], around the turn of the century of the 20th century, is that Puerto Rico belongs — I mean, basically, there’s a judgment that says that Puerto Rico belongs the United States, but it’s not a part of it. Think about that! Think about how the United States has viewed Puerto Rico historically.
You know, one of the things that I find almost laughable and kind of insulting about the statehood argument is that it’s always been equated to civil rights. People say: Well, it’s the civil rights movement of the United States right now. It’s a civil rights issue. And if anyone who has studied the civil rights movement in the United States would know, that that history is perhaps one of most violent and oppressive times of the late 20th century. And people put their lives on the line for a greater cause.
So I ask pro-statehood people — and I know I get in trouble, I don’t care anymore, because they come after me anyway — is: What are you going to do? And if you’re just going to present bills, and just look like you’re pushing for statehood because it goes back to the insularism that I’m saying, is that someone like Jenniffer González, who doesn’t have have a vote in Congress — she has no vote, there’s no political power. Alexandria, Ocasio-Cortez, who’s Puerto Rican, Nydia Velazquez, who’s Puerto Rican, have more political power in Capitol Hill, then Jenniffer González. But Jenniffer González will submit a bill or Pedro Pierluisi will come and do a delegation. And they’ll have a big photo op, and they’ll come back to Puerto Rico. And they’ll be like, “Look, we’re trying to push for statehood. We’ve seen this rodeo before. It happened in 2012. It happened in 2017,” when Ricardo Rosselló, who was the governor that resigned after the scandalous chat-gate in 2019, did the same thing. Nothing has happened. And so that’s where I think this is just absurd in a lot of ways.
VB: I have a question for you. Well, I have many questions for you. [Laughs.]
JRV: [Laughs.]
VB: Let’s imagine a utopian world in which self-determination actually passes the House and the Senate, and there’s a real opportunity to make a binding choice. And let’s also imagine that this binding choice would turn out to be independence. Are there conditions that you think Puerto Ricans should demand as part of getting independence. And what I’m getting at here is that —
JRV: Like reparations?
VB: Right. You’ve highlighted that if Puerto Rico was admitted, tomorrow, it would be poorer than Mississippi. I mean, it seems like when you have a history like the island has, it can’t just be that we cut you off at the umbilical cord, and wish you good luck, right?
JRV: Yeah, I mean, OK, if we really get into this utopia, because I actually would love to see that utopia. I would actually love to see a binding resolution that says, “Statehood or independence, you choose. And then the United States will grant it.” That’s the only solution to this. So I’m all for that utopia. I support a binding resolution that says, “Statehood or independence. Choose one. Done. Binding. Boom. All right.”
So let’s say, let’s say that happens. I love this. This is like fantasyland, but I love it. [Laughs.]
VB: It’s OK to dream.
JRV: Yeah. I’m dreaming. I’m sitting here, like, “Oh, let’s see what happens!”
OK, let’s say that happens. And let’s say statehood wins. Because, to be honest with you, right now statehood has an edge in Puerto Rico, but it doesn’t have political movements. So that’s a different thing, right? So let’s say statehood wins. Puerto Rican should demand reparations before becoming part of the Union. And if independence wins, Puerto Rican should demand reparations.
VB: [Laughs.]
JRV: Because this is what’s happened. We all understand what a colony is. I mean, if you start looking at the American psyche, right? We all know what a colony is. It’s like 13 colonies and there’s something majestic about it. It’s like we fought against this. But when you have a country that has literally been a colonial power, and it’s 2020, and there’s still remnants of the teddy roosevelt days, and we’re still talking about this, and then there’s this false understanding that, “Well, Puerto Ricans are Americans. So — this is what I’ve written about.”
I wrote about this earlier this year, when it comes to like, mostly white liberal progressives, who are debating this and saying, “Well, we’ll solve the problem for you. We know what’s best for you.” I’m like, “You’re literally acting like a colonial power.”
I really hope the day comes when Puerto Rico wakes up and stops playing this divisive-status, political game that has been going on for decades, that has not done anything to advance the island. And my hope is that it is the younger generation that is going after the two-party system, waking up to how ridiculous it’s been, and saying “We’re done.” And there are remnants of it when you start looking at the Election on November 3, that that challenge against this two-party system is already happening.
Now, will that transfer to a clear position on where Puerto Rico is? I think it’s too early to tell. I might be wrong, but I don’t see any political appetite in Washington. I don’t think Joe Biden’s gonna go — if we want to play fantasyland, let’s say Democrats win the two seats in Georgia, and it’s 50-50. I don’t see Kamala Harris, I don’t see Joe Biden’s political capital saying, “You know what? I’m gonna go to Mitch McConnell, and I’m gonna work on this Puerto Rico statehood thing, because that’s what really matters.” I think it’s a very low priority. And I think people need to be realistic, and people in Puerto Rico are being fed this illusion that it’s going to happen.
And — I’ll leave you with this. The governor elected Porto Rico, Pedro Pierluisi, is already calling for another referendum on status. [Laughs.] So what does that tell you? I mean, come on.
VB: Wow.
JRV: I’m gonna get in so much trouble on Twitter. Once this comes out. Puerto Rican Twitter is going to come at me.
VB: We’ll put your email address in the show notes to make sure the feedback can be directed to you.
JRV: [Laughs.]
VB: I do want to say, you know, if the Democrats can take back the Senate, it will be interesting to see whether that moment can be seized to finally give Puerto Rico the resolution that it deserves. But we’ll really have to see.
JRV: D.C. has a better chance in Puerto Rico. But we’ll see.
VB: We’ll see.
JRV: We’ll see.
VB: Julio, thank you so much for coming on to Deconstructed.
JRV: Oh, I’m glad I did!
VB: [Laughs.] Thank you.
[Musical interlude.]
VB: That was Julio Ricardo Varela, the founder of Latinorebels.com, and co-host of the podcast “In The Thick.”
If past referendums on statehood are any indication, the 2020 vote probably isn’t going to lead to anything concrete anytime soon. Nevertheless, Puerto Rican statehood is already being held up by Republicans as a boogeyman:
Donald Trump Jr.: They can pack the courts. They can attack the second amendment. They’ll give D.C. statehood. They’ll then give Puerto Rico statehood.
Sean Hannity: Democrats think they could lock in four additional senators, which would give them a Senate majority in perpetuity.
Steve Hilton: A permanent left-wing Senate majority.
DJT Jr.: For permanent Democrat Senators, in a balance that we will literally never overcome.
VB: But whatever happens, Puerto Rico deserves a chance to decide its own fate.
[Outro music.]
VB: Deconstructed is a production of First Look Media and The Intercept. Our producer is Zach Young. The show was mixed by Bryan Pugh. Our theme music was composed by Bart Warshaw. And Betsy Reed is The Intercept’s editor in chief.
And I’m Vanessa A. Bee. You can follow me on Twitter @Vanessa_ABee. If you haven’t already, please subscribe to the show so you can hear it every week. Go to theintercept.com/deconstructed to subscribe from your podcast platform of choice: iPhone, Android, whatever. If you’re subscribed already, please do leave us a rating or review — it helps people find the show. And if you want to give us feedback, email us at Podcasts@theintercept.com.
Thank you so much!
Bowhead whales. (photo: VDOS Global/WWF-Canada)
Bowhead Whale Population Recovers Despite Arctic Warming
Tiffany Duong, EcoWatch
Duong writes: "In good news that has scientists excited, bowhead whale populations are nearing pre-commercial whaling numbers in U.S. waters."
According to a recent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report card on the species, bowhead whales are the true Arctic baleen whale species and the only one that lives in the cold waters year-round. In the 1700s, they were targeted for their oil, blubber and baleen, or whalebone. Because they're slow-moving and large, they made easy targets and were nearly hunted to extinction by the start of the 20th century.
According to NOAA, the cessation of whaling, improved management and the general inaccessibility of their habitats helped several populations rebound, including the U.S. one off the coast of Alaska.
Still, the Arctic is drastically changing due to the climate crisis, with immense loss of sea ice, soaring temperatures and raging wildfires. This grim reality has caused many to conclude that "The Arctic is Dying."
News from the Arctic has been almost uniformly bad, but the bowhead's conservation success, especially for the U.S. population off of Alaska, stands out as a beacon of hope, The Guardian reported. The NOAA report card found that the whales' recovery actually had accelerated despite Arctic warming.
"This is really one of the great conservation successes of the last century," said J Craig George, a retired biologist with the North Slope borough department of wildlife management, reported The Guardian.
George also credited the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) for their sustainable management and stewardship of the species, the Guardian said. AEWC fought against offshore oil drilling and other activities that could harm whales.
"No one has fought harder than the AEWC to protect bowhead habitat from industrial development in the U.S. Arctic," George told The Guardian.
According to the report, scientists were surprised by the whales' population expansion in recent decades. Biologists expected the cold-adapted species to suffer from melting sea ice, but instead, they observed how warmer Arctic seas are becoming more productive by bringing additional nutrients and food for the bowheads, resulting in more successful pregnancies. Now, scientists are looking to the cetaceans to provide broader insights into Arctic marine ecosystem health.
Despite the gains, the bowheads' future is still uncertain. According to NOAA, all bowhead whales remain endangered throughout their range. Oil drilling by Shell in the Beaufort Sea remains a real threat. Scientists also predict that there could be an end to Arctic sea ice by 2035. Melting ice would provide less cover against fishing gear, ship collisions and orca predators as the climate continues to change. Even the increase in food sources could attract competitor baleen whales. And of course, the climate crisis continues.
"They really are headed into an uncertain future," George told The Guardian.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.