Every now and then you get the feeling that everything's right in a world where, most of the time these days, everything's wrong. Tom
"New York City began painting “Black Lives Matter” in large yellow letters on the street outside Trump Tower on Thursday, the latest flare-up in a yearslong feud between Mayor Bill de Blasio and President Trump, who rose to fame as a Manhattan real estate developer.
"Shortly after 10 a.m., city Department of Transportation workers began filling in the first letters of the phrase on Fifth Avenue, between 56th and 57th Streets, in Manhattan. As school-bus yellow paint was spread on the asphalt, a number of activists, reporters and onlookers milled around, with some occasionally shouting criticism of Mr. Trump.
"Since winning the presidential election in 2016, Mr. Trump has increasingly clashed with officials in his former home state, including not only Mr. de Blasio, but Manhattan’s district attorney, who issued a subpoena for eight years of Mr. Trump’s business and personal tax records.
"On Thursday, as the painting began, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Trump could not shield his financial records from New York prosecutors.
The public art project was announced last month, and city officials have presented its location as a direct rebuke of Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly denigrated those protesting against systemic racism and police brutality in recent weeks.
“The president is a disgrace to the values we cherish in New York City,” a spokeswoman for Mr. de Blasio said in a statement at the time. “He can’t run or deny the reality we are facing, and any time he wants to set foot in the place he claims is his hometown, he should be reminded Black Lives Matter.”
"Mr. Trump appeared to take the bait; the announcement provoked an inflammatory response that tried to play on tensions between Black Lives Matter protesters and the New York Police Department.
"Mr. Trump and Mr. de Blasio have sparred repeatedly in recent years. The mayor once said that New York would not “welcome back” Mr. Trump, who was born in Queens, after his presidency ended. Months later, the president, who has called Mr. de Blasio “the worst mayor in America,” switched his primary residence to Florida.
"The public battle between the two intensified after Mr. de Blasio announced his Democratic presidential bid last year. The mayor made Mr. Trump’s behavior a focal point of his campaign, and the president repeatedly scorned the mayor’s hopes for higher office.
"The painting outside Trump Tower is a part of a citywide project that will ultimately see at least one similar mural in each of the city’s five boroughs.
"The effort followed an act by Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington, who had workers paint “Black Lives Matter” in giant yellow letters outside the White House after the president deployed federal officers during protests there."
71 donors are what is keeping RSN alive this month. 71 donors, out of over two hundred and fifty thousand visitors, have stepped up and made a contribution. That’s it, that’s what’s keeping the process going.
Cole writes: "Agnes Callamard, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, has concluded in a new report that the Trump administration's killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport on January 3 was unlawful. Callamard has the responsibility to report on killings by drone."
Anna Germoni of the Italian TPI.it site interviewed Callamard about her findings.
Callamard noted that her own particular remit is arbitrary murders, and that Trump’s whacking of Soleimani was a first:
“The targeted killing of General Qasem Soleimani is the first case of a drone attack against the representative of the armed forces of a state. Until now, all drone kills that I am aware of have targeted non-state targets, particularly individuals associated with acts of terror.”
That is worth underlining. Trump did something that had never before been done, and which is very dangerous. He used a drone on a high-ranking general in a foreign army of a state– a state with which the United States is not formally at war.
Callamard admitted that there could be circumstances when such killings were justified, if it really was a matter of self defense:
“Killing in self-defense is allowed as a last resort, to protect one’s own life or that of others. The United States would have to demonstrate that it encountered an imminent threat to lives and that, in order to protect those lives, there was no other choice than to use lethal force. So far, no such justification has been demonstrated.”
President Trump initially announced that Soleimani had been coming to Iraq to kill Americans. But the then Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdulmahdi, said it was he who invited Soleimani to Baghdad, since he was trying to mediate between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Soleimani came on a commercial flight and checked through security with his diplomatic passport.
Trump never provided a shred of evidence for his allegation. When the Pentagon did up its own report on the incident, it did not include the charge that Soleimani had intended to kill Americans.
Germoni pressed Callamard on this issue, and she answered:
“As for the legality of the U.S. strike against General Soleimani, the information made available by the U.S. authorities does not, in my view, allow us to say that the murder was legal under international law . . . For a drone attack to be legal, it must meet the legal requirements of all applicable international legal regimes, namely: the law governing the use of force between states (ius ad bellum), international humanitarian law (ius in bello) and international human rights law (Ihrl). I believe that, in itself, the ius ad bellum is not sufficient to guide the use of extra-territorial force but that other legal principles apply.
This is an interesting point. Although the strike on Soleimani has tended to be viewed in the light of the law of war, which focuses on proportionality and questions of self-defense, Callamard is saying that human rights law is also relevant to the taking of life and should be entered into the calculation.
In particular, she says that the criterion of imminent threat is crucial. You can’t kill a convicted murderer who served his time, because of past deeds. That would be vigilanteism. Only if the murderer is trying to choke you out and you feel he is trying to kill you or someone else can you blow him away. Callamard says,
“The justifications put forward by the United States have largely focused on Soleimani’s past activities and the serious crimes for which he is held responsible. And there is much evidence linking Soleimani to serious human rights violations in Iran, Syria, Iraq and other countries. But under international law his past involvement in human rights violations or acts of terror is not enough to make his murder lawful . . . Do we have to accept that any country with adequate power and advanced tools to carry out drone or targeted kills can proceed at any time, at its discretion, to strike anyone considered a threat to their interests?”
Callamard concludes that not only was Soleimani’s killing unlawful, it set a very bad precedent. Trump was acting as judge, jury and executioner and arbitrarily killing someone he didn’t like the looks of. But what if that became standard practice? Wouldn’t US officers be in danger of being droned? This consideration had given previous presidents pause when they considered such a course of action. Not Trump.
This combination of photos provided by the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office shows (from left) Derek Chauvin, J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao. Lane's attorney on Wednesday filed a motion to dismiss charges against him. (photo: AP)
Transcripts of Police Body Cams Show Floyd Pleaded 20 Times That He Couldn't Breathe Scott Neuman, NPR Neuman writes: "Transcripts of police body camera video in the minutes leading up to George Floyd's death show that he pleaded some 20 times that he couldn't breathe and that one of the officers expressed concern about Floyd's well-being, but was rebuffed by his superior." READ MORE
Excerpt: "The Brazilian Press Association (ABI) Tuesday announced that it will file a lawsuit against President Jair Bolsonaro, whom he accuses of putting at risk the lives of the journalists who were at the press conference in which he announced he is a COVID-19 case."
The reckless attitude of the Brazilian president has converted him into a possible contagious focus for others.
The meme reads, "Bolsonaro posts video taking hydroxychloroquine, which has no proven efficacy against COVID-19. 'I trust hydroxychloroquine. And you?,' said the President, who tested positive to coronavirus infection."
"Over the weekend... without respecting the physical distancing recommendations, Bolsonaro met with ministers and the U.S. Ambassador to Brazil Todd Chapman to celebrate the U.S. independence date. None of them wore masks," local outlet Carta Capital recalled.
"On Monday morning, Bolsonaro even took pictures with children... When he announced that he was contaminated... Bolsonaro took off his mask to talk to the journalists," it added.
After confirming that had COVID-19, Brazil's president posted a video in which he suggested the use of chloroquine, an antimalarial whose efficacy against COVID-19 is not scientifically proven.
As of Wednesday morning, it had confirmed 1,674,655 COVID-19 cases and 66,868 deaths. In the last 24 hours, 1,254 COVID-19 patients died in this South American country.
s a warming climate melts sea ice in the Arctic, female polar bears have increasingly been forced to make their dens on land. But a new study has found that mother bears are unlikely to abandon their dens when they are disturbed—for example, by fossil fuel companies' exploration for new sources of oil—even if the disturbance is life-threatening.
As the Trump administration works toward allowing oil drilling in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which counts polar bears among the many species that live there, that reluctance to flee could pose a danger to the bears.
Scientists have found signs that polar bears are at risk from climate change, including changes in reproductive rates, physical condition and size, some of which have been linked to sea ice loss.
Published Tuesday in the journal Arctic, the study found that a one-mile buffer to protect polar bear dens from industrial activity is adequate to keep pregnant bears and new mothers safe—but, according to the study's authors, that's only if those dens can be located.
While the oil and gas industry's attempts to identify polar bear dens before exploring for fossil fuel resources, the technology it uses to detect the dens—a type of thermal imaging camera called forward looking infrared—misses about 55 percent of the enclosures.
"It presents this problem where if [the oil and gas industry] can't locate all these dens and they're just doing business as usual up there, there's a decent chance that at some point they're going to kill bears with their cubs or make the mom run off and leave her cubs," said lead author Wesley Larson, who was a graduate student at Brigham Young University during the study.
In ordinary times, most polar bears would build their dens on the Arctic sea ice, but as climate change leads to the loss of sea ice, more and more bears are forced to den on land.
In the late fall, pregnant polar bears build dens by digging a cave into snow drifts, just big enough for them to fit inside. During the winter, they give birth while snowfall seals them inside, making the den invisible from above ground. In the spring, when the cubs are old enough, the female bears emerge from the dens.
"That puts them in direct conflict with people who are using the land, whether it's the oil industry or other people on land," Larson said. "So we're seeing a higher level of conflict."
A Place of Safety?
The study, based on 42 years of data and conducted by researchers from Brigham Young University and the advocacy group Polar Bears International, monitored the Southern Beaufort Sea population of polar bears in northern Alaska. It focused on the area around Prudhoe Bay—the historical home of drilling on the North Slope—and included the Arctic refuge.
In the study, researchers recorded responses to disturbances near polar bear dens. Disturbances ranged from humans walking nearby to aircraft flying overhead, while responses varied from no response to abandoning the den.
The study found that den abandonment occurred in about 8 percent of disturbances, mostly from aircraft flying over the den and almost exclusively when the female did not have cubs yet.
"Most bears were remarkably comfortable at their den sites," said co-author Geoff York, senior director of conservation for Polar Bears International. "They seemed to see their den sites as a place of safety."
The Arctic refuge is one of the remaining untouched wilderness areas in the United States where polar bears can den with little risk of disturbance. Since the Trump administration's early days, when the plan to open the refuge to drilling became clear, critics have worried that any industrial activity there could have an impact on the native Gwich'in, who rely on caribou there for survival, and on species that call the area home.
The Trump Administration has been planning to hold a lease sale in the refuge, though the last step before that can happen—the publication of the final environmental impact statement—has not yet taken place, and it's unclear whether the lease sale will go through this year.
In a statement, the Alaska Wilderness League said that a recent U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service analysis of the risks of drilling in the Arctic refuge did not sufficiently address polar bears, but rather came to an "unsupportable conclusion" that this population of polar bears would not be jeopardized by industrialization of the region.
"There's many reasons why this landscape should be protected," said Adam Kolton, executive director of Alaska Wilderness League. "There's no way to ensure that we're not going to end up killing polar bears during an industrial intrusion into the heart of the wildest place in America."
'A Bit of a Catch-22'
The Southern Beaufort Sea population of polar bears declined 40 percent from 2000 to 2010, when the population was approximately 900, according to a 2014 study. Cub survival, which is vital to supporting polar bear populations, was dismal during this period. Out of 80 cubs observed from 2004 to 2007, only two survived, the 2014 study said.
"From a polar bear population standpoint, what we need is four or five good years in a row to bring cubs into the adult population and either stabilize or grow a population," York said. "What we've been seeing in places like the South Beaufort Sea is we're getting more bad years and we're seeing lower cub survival and we're seeing population decline."
The denning period is just the beginning of a cub's struggle to survive. For the first two months of their lives, cubs and their fasting mothers are too vulnerable to withstand the harsh conditions of Alaska winters.
The proportion of the Southern Beaufort population denning on sea ice decreased from an average of 62 percent between 1984 and 1994 to 37 percent between 1998 and 2004. Much of this denning is in the Arctic Refuge.
"Climate change is having an enormous impact on places like Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which is protected and pristine," Kolton said. "There's no reason to put polar bears at risk there, but we ought to do everything we can to reduce risk."
A 2019 study by the Fish and Wildlife Service found that disruptions to polar bear dens by seismic surveying—an intensive method of oil exploration—can be reduced by 90 percent if industrial operators maintain a buffer around dens and conduct operations after polar bears have emerged from their dens, which happens around late March.
This is good guidance in theory, York said, but den locations are often unknown and spring warming can complicate drilling operations.
"Today, the ice road window for the north slope of Alaska has been shrinking due to climate change and has become less reliable," he said, "and that time period where [fossil fuel industry operators] know they can get on to solid frozen tundra with adequate snow coverage and do minimal damage is shrinking."
"It's a bit of a Catch-22 for them and, ironically, it's an issue partly of their own making," York said. "[Climate change] is a side effect of the industry itself that's warming the environment."
The best solution for minimizing disturbances to polar bear dens is to stay out of the Arctic refuge, a "hotspot" for polar bear denning, York said.
"Give bears that one place where they can den in peace and safety," he said, "especially at a time when their habitat is changing dramatically."
