Tuesday, November 24, 2020

RSN: FOCUS: Trump Officials Rush to Mine Desert Haven Native Tribes Consider Holy

 

 

Reader Supported News
24 November 20


We Said Thank You and the Donations Completely Stopped

One of the most dangerous things we can say during a fundraising drive is, “thank you.” Nothing stops the donations faster or kills a fundraising drive quicker than the words thank you.

Perhaps people interpret those words to mean that we have achieved our goal, covered our budget or have raised all the funding we will ever need? Or maybe that’s just what people want to believe?

Thank you was just meant as a salute to the few people who have come through for RSN this month.

Please join them.

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


 

Reader Supported News
24 November 20

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


WE SAID THANK YOU AND THE DONATIONS COMPLETELY STOPPED - One of the most dangerous things we can say during a fundraising drive is, “thank you.” Nothing stops the donations faster or kills a fundraising drive quicker than the words thank you. Perhaps people interpret those words to mean that we have achieved our goal, covered our budget or have raised all the funding we will ever need? Or maybe that’s just what people want to believe? Thank you was just meant as a salute to the few people who have come through for RSN this month. Please join them. / Marc Ash, Founder Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!


FOCUS: Trump Officials Rush to Mine Desert Haven Native Tribes Consider Holy
Arizona's Oak Flat, where in 1995 what is estimated to be one of the largest copper deposits in the world was discovered. (photo: NOAA/U.S. Department of Commerce)
Annette McGivney, Guardian UK
McGivney writes: "Since January, San Carlos Apache tribal member Wendsler Nosie Sr has been sleeping in a teepee at a campground in south-eastern Arizona’s Oak Flat, a sprawling high desert oasis filled with groves of ancient oaks and towering rock spires. It is a protest in defense of 'holy ground' where the Apache have prayed and performed ceremonies for centuries."


Administration seeks to transfer ownership of Arizona area to mining company with ties to the destruction of an Aboriginal site

It is a protest in defense of “holy ground” where the Apache have prayed and performed ceremonies for centuries.

A dozen south-western Native American tribes have strong cultural ties to Oak Flat. But the Trump administration, in its waning days, has embarked on a rushed effort to transfer ownership of the area to a mining company with ties to the destruction of an Aboriginal site in Australia, the Guardian has learned.

“We were in the fourth quarter with two minutes left in the game. And then Trump cheated so now we only have one minute left,” said Nosie, who was a football quarterback in high school. “Everybody has to mobilize now to fight this.”

Last month tribes discovered that the date for the completion of a crucial environmental review process has suddenly been moved forward by a full year, to December 2020, even as the tribes are struggling with a Covid outbreak that has stifled their ability to respond. If the environmental review is completed before Trump leaves office, the tribes may be unable to stop the mine.

In a meeting with environmental groups, local officials said that the push was occurring because “we are getting pressure from the highest level at the Department of Agriculture,” according to notes from the meeting seen by the Guardian. The department oversees the US Forest Service, which is in charge of Oak Flat.

As the curtain closes on the Trump era, officials are hurrying through a host of environmentally destructive projects that will benefit corporate interests. These include opening the Arctic national wildlife refuge to oil and gas drilling and rolling back protections on endangered gray wolves.

In Oak Flat, the beneficiaries will be a company called Resolution Copper and its two Anglo-Australian parent firms, the mining conglomerates Rio Tinto and BHP.

“The Trump administration is cutting corners and doing a rushed job just to take care of Rio Tinto,” said the Democratic Arizona representative Raúl Grijalva. “And the fact they are doing it during Covid makes it even more disgusting. Trump and Rio Tinto know the tribes’ reaction would be very strong and public under normal circumstances but the tribes are trying to save their people right now.”

Ever since 1995, when what is estimated to be one of the largest copper deposits in the world was discovered 7,000 feet beneath Oak Flat, a battle has raged pitting environmental and indigenous groups against Resolution Copper.

Listed on the National Register of Historic Places, Oak Flat contains numerous indigenous archaeological sites dating back 1,500 years. If the mine goes forward as planned, it will consume 11 square miles, including Apache burial grounds, sacred sites, petroglyphs and medicinal plants.

Resolution plans to extract 1.4m tons of copper ore by blasting beneath the surface and pulling it out through tunnels. Once all the ore is sucked out, a crater estimated to be 1,000 feet deep and almost two miles across will be left behind.

There is also concern over a 400ft-high escarpment called Apache Leap that is vulnerable to the proposed mine. Named for Apache warriors who jumped off the cliff in the late 1800s to avoid capture by the US army, the site holds great historical significance for the Apache people, and memorializes tribal losses when European immigrants invaded their homeland.

An independent analysis performed on behalf of the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition determined there is a 9% chance the mine’s crater could reach Apache Leap and catastrophically destabilize it.

Even though the San Carlos Apache and other tribes have always been opposed to mining at Oak Flat, there are no federal laws giving Native Americans control of ancestral lands that are outside reservation boundaries.

Tribes were blindsided in 2014 when a proposal to exchange federally owned Oak Flat for private land owned by Resolution Copper was included, at the last minute, in a spending bill. It was at the behest of four Arizona members of Congress who supported Resolution’s mining plans.

For the last six years, the Forest Service has been carrying out an environmental review of the proposed mine and the controversial land exchange. Numerous tribes and environmental groups have voiced their opposition in the hope the mine could be prevented from moving forward or significantly scaled back.

Resolution Copper has argued that it is taking all necessary environmental precautions and has sought input from tribes. “There have been hundreds of consultations on the Resolution Copper project with Native American tribes,” wrote project director Andrew Lye in an email. “As with all tribes, Resolution Copper would welcome the opportunity for more collaborative dialogue with the San Carlos Apache tribe to build a relationship and ultimately look for ways to partner for mutual benefit.”

Resolution has vowed to monitor geologic activity around Apache Leap to make sure the mine’s crater does not get too close to the sacred cliff. Lye also points to a host of community support programs funded by the company to benefit the San Carlos Apache and other tribes. These include a monitoring program where tribal members are trained by archaeologists to help identify culturally significant indigenous artifacts.

Yet the recent history of Rio Tinto, one of the parent companies, has given cause for concern.

Last May, Rio Tinto blasted a 46,000-year old sacred Aboriginal site in Juukan Gorge, in western Australia. After widespread public outcry and investor revolt over the destruction, Rio Tinto’s CEO and two other top executives resigned in September.

“What happened at Juukan was wrong and we are determined to ensure that the destruction of a heritage site of such exceptional archaeological and cultural significance never occurs again at a Rio Tinto operation,” Rio Tinto’s chairman, Simon Thompson, said in a statement following the resignations.

Once the final Oak Flat environmental review is released, the land exchange must happen within 60 days. Ownership of Oak Flat could transfer to Resolution Copper before Joe Biden’s 20 January inauguration.

“We are looking at the destruction of some of the Apache’s most significant cultural and historic sites with this project,” said Kathryn Leonard, the Arizona state historic preservation officer. Federal historic preservation laws focus on ameliorating harms rather than blocking a development altogether, she explained.

“Our preservation laws are not set up to prevent this level of loss. It weighs heavily on me.”

Grijalva, who chairs the House natural resources committee, has asked the Forest Service to explain the reason for the accelerated timeline but as of late last week his staff had not received any clarification. Environmental groups are positioned to challenge the decision in court, while Grijalva and Senator Bernie Sanders have introduced a bill calling for the repeal of the land transfer.

“If the land exchange happens, it will be difficult to roll back,” said Grijalva. “That is why this cannot be rushed. The Forest Service must do their due diligence because of what is at stake. The damage is irreparable.”

READ MORE


Contribute to RSN

Update My Monthly Donation








The Man from Bloomfield Hills" -- The Mitt Romney Story

 















RSN: FOCUS: The One Word That Bars Trump From Pardoning Himself

 


 

Reader Supported News
24 November 20

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


AGAIN A DEAD STOP ON DONATIONS - There was a glimmer of hope over the past 48 hours as we inched forward on donations. But all donations have completely stopped once again at this point. If 30 readers today stop for just a moment and make a donation to support our work it will be a good day. So far none have. Donations. Yes that’s how we do it. In earnest. / Marc Ash, Founder Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!


FOCUS: The One Word That Bars Trump From Pardoning Himself
Donald Trump. (image: Guardian UK)
Eric Muller, The Atlantic
Muller writes: "As Donald Trump's tenure in office comes in for its landing, a major question is whether the president - facing questions about liability for offenses including bank and tax fraud - can pardon himself."


The question shouldn’t be whether the president can pardon himself but whether he can grant himself a pardon—and those are not the same thing.

This might seem like the right operational question, but it is imprecise as a constitutional one. Article II of the Constitution says that the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Did you catch that? The president has the power not to pardon people, but “to grant … Pardons” (emphasis added). So the question is not whether Trump can pardon himself. It’s whether he can grant himself a pardon.

That might seem like an odd way of putting the question, but it’s linguistically important. On the one hand, some actions can’t be reflexive—you can’t do them to yourself. Think of surrenderingrelinquishing, or handing over something. These verbs entail a transfer to someone else; the actor can’t also be the recipient.

On the other hand, countless verbs do leave open the possibility of reflexive meaning. If, for example, the Constitution had empowered the president not to grant a pardon but to announce a pardon, one would be hard-pressed to insist that the president could not announce himself as a recipient.

So, what about granting? Is it—in its usage in the Constitution—a verb more like handing over or announcing?

Judges and other legal scholars have a set of techniques for determining the meaning of constitutional text. One is to scour the rest of the Constitution for hints. If the same word appears in multiple clauses of the Constitution, one should assume that it has the same meaning throughout unless a clear reason exists to think otherwise. So let’s look at the verb grant in the Constitution outside the pardons clause.

Article I says that all of the “legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” “We the People” are doing the granting here, doling out to Congress the power to make policy. Grant here is transitive—from one entity to another.

The same article gives Congress the power “to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.” Those are permission slips that let private commercial vessels make war against ships of enemy nations and do things that would otherwise be piracy. Again, grant is transitive—from Congress to ships.

Article I later states that “no Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States,” that “no state … shall grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” and that “no state … shall grant any title of Nobility.” Transitive, transitive, and transitive.

According to Article II, the president has the power “to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” Again, transitive. If, say, the previously Senate-confirmed secretary of education quits while the Senate is in recess, the president can name a temporary replacement.

The last use of the word grant in the Constitution, apart from the pardons clause itself, is in Article III, where the power of the judiciary is set to include “Controversies … between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States.” Here grant is a noun, not a verb, but it again describes something extending from one entity (a state) to another (a citizen).

Based solely on other uses of grant in the Constitution, a person could reasonably determine that a president cannot grant himself a pardon. But in evaluating the meaning of the Constitution’s words, the text of the Constitution isn’t all that counts. The most common interpretive method these days—championed by Justice Antonin Scalia and now broadly popular among conservatives—is to look for evidence of a term’s “original public meaning.” That, theoretically, is the meaning that ordinary English speakers of the late 18th century would have attached to a given term when coming upon it in a legal document like the Constitution.

But how is one to determine this “original public meaning”? One place to begin is a law dictionary in use at the time, such as The Law-Dictionary: Explaining the Rise, Progress, and Present State of the English Law; Defining and Interpreting the Terms or Words of Art; and Comprising Copious Information on the Subjects of Law, Trade, and Government, compiled by Giles Jacob, and the most popular legal dictionary of the era. According to Jacob’s tome, a grant—which he defined only as a noun—is a “conveyance in writing of incorporeal things.” And what, in turn, is a conveyance? It is “a deed which passes or conveys land from one man to another.”

Note: “from one man to another.”

Thus, to the extent that the most popular contemporaneous law dictionary is valuable in understanding what ordinary speakers of the founding era meant by “granting,” it seems clear that they probably had in mind an interpersonal transfer.

Now, dictionaries are not the only available evidence of a term’s meaning at a particular historical moment. We have books, newspapers, and other printed matter. And people today are fortunate to have an easy way to search huge amounts of such material in the form of the Google Books Ngram Viewer. This extraordinary bit of technology allows a user to pick a beginning and an end date and request a calculation of the frequency with which words and phrases appear in all of Google’s scanned written material from that time period. This tool can reveal, for example, that the word texting got almost no use across the 20th century until 1997, when, for reasons everyone can infer, it began to skyrocket.

According to the Ngram Viewer, did English speakers in the late 18th century understand the verb grant to have a reflexive meaning? In their world, could you grant something to yourself? If you could, evidence of that in the form of phrases such as grants himself and grants herself and grant themselves and grant myself and grant yourself should appear throughout the Ngram Viewer’s corpus.

But, in the time period from 1750 to 1800, essentially none of these appears. Transitive uses of the verb—“grant me,” “grant him,” “grant her,” “grant us,” “grant you,” and the like, where the person receiving the grant is different from the person doing the granting—are all common. But reflexive uses, where the person doing the granting is also the person on the receiving end? All but nonexistent. In most instances where a phrase like grant myself does pop up, it’s a different meaning of grant entirely, as in John Knox’s 1790 book, History of the Reformation of Religion in the Realm of Scotland, in which the word means something like “acknowledge”: “And when you let me see the contrary, I shall grant myself to be deceived in that point.”

To be sure, by the 20th century a reflexive meaning of grant appears in Ngram Viewer searches, as in this passage from a 1921 Macmillan Reader for Commercial Classes: “We need more sleep at twenty-five than we do at fifty, and the young man who grants himself less than eight hours’ sleep every night just robs himself of so much vitality.”

In the second half of the 18th century, we see no such evidence.

Ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer. Can Donald Trump pardon himself? Perhaps, but that’s not the question the Constitution requires us to ask. Can Donald Trump grant himself a pardon? The evidence, at least according to the text of the Constitution and its original meaning, says no.

READ MORE


Contribute to RSN

Update My Monthly Donation








she's not happy about this...

 



Will you make a donation of $25, or more if you can, right now to help keep our ads on the air, reach critical undecided voters and flip Georgia blue, so we can take back the Senate for Democrats?


Bye Bye Donny - Bye Bye Trump (Song is So Brilliant)

 









RSN: Robert Reich | Profiles in Cowardice

 



 

Reader Supported News
24 November 20

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


TIME TO THINK ABOUT WHAT RSN MEANS - Time is short, it’s the 24th day of the month and only 430 Readers have donated so far. Those are some of the worst numbers we have ever seen. You come here for a reason. Is it to be entertained or to be a part of something? What brings you to Reader Supported News? What is that worth to you? What will you do? / Marc Ash, Founder Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!


Robert Reich | Profiles in Cowardice
Robert Reich. (photo: Getty Images)
Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
Reich writes: "Financial regulators subject banks to stress tests to see if they have enough capital to withstand sharp downturns."


Now America is being subject to a stress test to see if it has enough strength to withstand Trump’s treacherous campaign to discredit the 2020 presidential election.

Trump will lose because there’s no evidence of fraud. But the integrity of thousands of people responsible for maintaining American democracy is being tested as never before.

Tragically, most elected Republicans in Washington are failing the test by refusing to stand up to Trump. Their cowardice is one of the worst betrayals of public trust in the history of our republic.

The only dissenting notes are coming from Republicans who are retiring at the end of the year or don’t have to face voters for several years, such as Senators Mitt Romney of Utah and Ben Sasse of Nebraska.

Silent Republicans worry that speaking out could invite a primary challenge. But democracy depends on moral courage. These Republicans are profiles in cowardice.

But I’ve got some good news. The vast majority of lower-level Republican office-holders are passing the stress test, many with distinction.

Take for example Chris Krebs, who led the Department of Homeland Security’s cybersecurity agency and last Tuesday refuted Trump’s claims of election fraud – saying the claims “have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent.”

Trump fired Krebs that afternoon. Krebs’s response: “Honored to serve. We did it right.”

Or Brad Raffensperger – Georgia’s Republican secretary of state who oversaw the election there and describes himself as “a Republican through and through and never voted for a Democrat.” Raffensperger is defending Georgia’s vote for Biden, rejecting Trump’s accusations of fraud. On Friday he certified that Biden won the state’s presidential vote.

Raffensperger spurned overtures from Trump quisling Lindsey Graham, who asked if Raffensperger could toss out all mail-in votes from counties with high rates of questionable signatures. And Raffensperger dismissed demands from Georgia’s two incumbent Republican senators, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue (both facing tougher-than-anticipated runoffs) that he resign.

“This office runs on integrity,” Raffensperger says, “and that’s what voters want to know, that this person’s going to do his job.”

Raffensperger has received death threats from Republican voters inflamed by Trump’s allegations. He’s not the only one. Election officials in Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Arizona are also reporting threats. But they’re not giving in to them.

While we’re at it, let’s not forget all the other public officials in the Trump administration who have been stress-tested and passed honorably.

I’m referring to public health officials unwilling to lie about Covid-19, military leaders unwilling to back Trump’s attacks on Black Lives Matter protesters, inspectors general unwilling to cover up Trump corruption, U.S. foreign service officers unwilling to lie about Trump’s overtures to Ukraine, intelligence officials unwilling to bend their reports to suit Trump, and Justice Department attorneys refusing to participate in Trump’s obstructions of justice.

If you think it easy to do what they did, think again. Some of them lost their jobs. Many were demoted. A few have been threatened with violence. They’ve risked all this to do what’s morally right in an America poisoned by Trump, who has no idea what it means to do what’s morally right.

That’s ultimately what the Trump stress test is all about. It’s a test of moral integrity.

Even though House and Senate Republicans are failing that test, American democracy will survive because enough public officials are passing it.

But the fact that Trump’s attempted coup won’t succeed doesn’t make it any less damaging and dangerous. A new poll from Monmouth University finds 77 percent of Trump supporters believe Biden’s win was due to fraud – a claim, I should emphasize again, backed by zero evidence.

Which means the stress test won’t be over when Joe Biden is sworn in as president January 20. In the years ahead we’ll continue to depend on the integrity of thousands of unsung heroes to do their duty in the face of threats to their livelihoods and perhaps their lives.

Meanwhile, American democracy will continue to be endangered by House and Senate Republicans who lack the moral courage to do what’s right.



READ MORE



President-elect Joe Biden speaks Monday in Wilmington, Delaware, during a virtual meeting with the U.S. Conference of Mayors. (photo: Mark Makela/Getty Images)
President-elect Joe Biden speaks Monday in Wilmington, Delaware, during a virtual meeting with the U.S. Conference of Mayors. (photo: Mark Makela/Getty Images)

ALSO SEE: Trump Relents After Steady Drumbeat of Fellow Republicans
Urge Start of Biden Transition


President-Elect Biden to Begin Formal Transition Process After Agency OK
Brian Naylor and Alana Wise, NPR
Excerpt: "Joe Biden's administration can formally begin its transition to power after a previously little-known federal agency on Monday ascertained Biden as the apparent winner of the election more than two weeks after the Democrat became president-elect."
READ MORE



Senator Dianne Feinstein. (photo: POLITICO)
Senator Dianne Feinstein. (photo: POLITICO)


Feinstein Will Not Seek Judiciary Chairmanship
Sahil Kapur, NBC News
Kapur writes: "Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Monday she will step down as top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee in the new session of Congress beginning early 2021, marking a victory for progressives who pressured her to step aside."
READ MORE



Pending regulatory approval for the first vaccine means the first Americans could be vaccinated outside of clinical trial by mid-December. (photo: Getty Images)
Pending regulatory approval for the first vaccine means the first Americans could be vaccinated outside of clinical trial by mid-December. (photo: Getty Images)


US Vaccine Expert Predicts Life Could Be Back to Normal Around May
Joanna Walters, Guardian UK
Walters writes: "As the number of Covid-19 cases in the United States passed 12 million, the Trump administration's vaccine program adviser predicted that life in America could be back to normal around May of 2021 as immunization is set to begin."
READ MORE



Dr. Anthony Fauci. (photo: Susan Walsh/AP)
Dr. Anthony Fauci. (photo: Susan Walsh/AP)


Trust in Science Becomes a Political Issue. How Did That Happen?
Anna Stjernquist, The Christian Science Monitor
Stjernquist writes: "Science has become a politically polarizing issue. A global report found Americans are three times more likely to trust scientists if they identify as left-wing, a political divide that makes the United States an outlier internationally."


A Pew survey found that people mainly trust scientists to do what is in the public interest. But that attitude varies with political ideology.

cience has become a politically polarizing issue. A global report found Americans are three times more likely to trust scientists if they identify as left-wing, a political divide that makes the United States an outlier internationally.

The survey by the Pew Research Center found that global publics mainly trust scientists to do what is in the public's best interest. But attitudes vary with political ideology, according to results compiled just before the COVID-19 outbreak.

This sparks questions about the role of science now and following the pandemic.

The questionnaire study asked people across the globe to share their views on science relating to big public policy issues such as climate change and artificial intelligence. Interviews were held by phone or face-to-face.

“We saw an increase in confidence in scientists but that increase only came from Democrats and not Republicans,” says Cary Funk, director of science and society research at the Pew Research Center.

Recent presidential campaign events bear out these findings. At his rally in Carson City, Nevada, on Oct. 18., President Donald Trump mocked Joe Biden for listening to scientists on the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile Mr. Biden slammed Mr. Trump for ignoring it.

Studying public support for scientists and their work is a timely issue, Dr. Funk adds.

“It’s of interest because it’s been widely discussed, especially in Western Europe, how much people trust expert advice. It was a good moment to think about how different publics value the place of science,” she says.

Expert advice has been heavily discussed, not least by far-right movements who sometimes label the scientific community as elite. One argument is that institutions and universities provide “leftist indoctrination,” which has resulted in several counter-initiatives aimed at restoring balance.

That discussion could be reflected in this study where distrust of scientists shows ties to far-right populism.

What makes science polarized?

Almost two-thirds of Americans who identified as left-wing said they place a lot of trust in scientists to do what is best for them. Among those who identified as right-wing that number was only 22%.

Canada had a 39% difference between right- and left-wing respondents. In Australia that difference was 29% and in the United Kingdom it was 27%.

Americans have the most polarized views in the world when it comes to science. But the global trend is clear: Polarization is all over the world, and most prevalent in wealthy democracies.

Tom Carothers, senior vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says it boils down to trust. He says that distrusting science has very little to do with political ideology and everything to do with distrust in government. “Science is just another form of authority, and if people have decided that authority is evil then science is evil, too.”

An age of distrust

There are a couple of reasons we have been in an age of distrust for the past 20 or 30 years, says Mr. Carothers. Long economic stagnation in the West and concentration of power in elites likely play a role. But migration and rapid change brought on by technology are also key, he says.

“People feel things are moving too fast. They want things to slow down and they want things to stay the same. Therefore they distrust the government that is leading the change,” he says.

Mr. Carothers points out that distrust of government is more common in wealthier countries, where freedom of speech is sacred. “Wealthy democracies have a lot of freedom of expression and not a single source of information. Therefore if you are distrustful you can find your own community of people.”

He argues social media’s only real role in creating divisions is connecting people who are already dissatisfied.

The COVID-19 stress test

Distrust in authority and polarized views could be accentuated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which Mr. Carothers refers to as a government stress test.

“A lot of countries are suffering and they are questioning the experts. They seem to have all the scientific expertise but it doesn’t work … it doesn’t make you very confident in scientific expertise,” he says.

On the other hand, former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman says the pandemic could have unexpected positive outcomes. “People are seeing the mishandling of COVID-19. It’s really the No. 1 issue in the [presidential] campaign ... which tells you that people are saying that we should have listened to the scientists.”

She mentions polls show people trust Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, more than Mr. Trump on the coronavirus pandemic.

Ms. Whitman says the Trump administration has contributed to a distrust in scientists among Republicans during the pandemic. “It’s never reached the peak that it has now and that’s because we have a president who just does not want to hear about science. And unfortunately we are seeing the negative impact of disregarding science with the COVID response.”

READ MORE



Stark changes have been observed at the main mosque in Yinchuan, capital of Ningxia province. (photo: Telegraph)
Stark changes have been observed at the main mosque in Yinchuan, capital of Ningxia province. (photo: Telegraph)


China Destroys Domes of Famous Mosques as Cultural Whitewash Continues
Sophia Yan, The Telegraph
Yan writes: "China's campaign to suppress Islam is accelerating as authorities remove Arab-style onion domes and decorative elements from mosques across the country."

Stark changes have been observed at the main mosque in Yinchuan, capital of Ningxia province, where most of China’s Hui ethnic Muslim minority live.

The bright green onion-shaped domes and golden minarets that used to soar into the sky atop Nanguan Mosque have all been pulled down. Golden Islamic-style filigree, decorative arches, and Arabic script that before adorned the mosque have also been stripped away.

What remains is unrecognisable – a drab, gray, rectangular facility with “Nanguan Mosque” written in Chinese, as shown in photos posted online by Christina Scott, the UK’s deputy head of mission in China, on a recent trip.

“TripAdvisor suggested the Nanguan Mosque in Yinchuan well worth a visit,” Ms Scott wrote on Twitter, along with ‘before and after’ photos. “Only this is what it looks now, after ‘renovations.’ Domes, minarets, all gone. No visitors allowed either, of course. So depressing.”

The UK foreign office said: “We are deeply concerned about restrictions on Islam and other religions in China. We call on China to respect Freedom of Religion or Belief, in line with its Constitution and its international obligations.”

Islamic-style onion domes and decorative elements are also being axed from mosques in neighbouring Gansu province, home to Linxia, a city nicknamed “Little Mecca” for its history as a centre for Islamic faith and culture in China.

Erasing Islamic decorative elements from mosques is yet another step Chinese authorities are taking under Communist Party leader Xi Jinping, who has vowed to ‘Sinicise’ religion.

More recently, the coronavirus has given Chinese authorities convenient cover to keep many mosques closed – even as Beijing crows victory over the pandemic and a flurry of activity has picked up again.

China has for years waged a campaign against Islamic influence, removing decorative elements and Arabic script from buildings, signs and arches, and now, targeting mosques in Ningxia and other provinces.

In Xinjiang, things have taken an especially sinister turn with “re-education” camps that subject detainees to horrific physical torture, political indoctrination and forced labour. Growing a beard, fasting and reading the Koran have all been deemed suspicious behaviour by the government and reason enough to be interned in camps.

Former detainees have told the Telegraph of being electrocuted by cattle prods, made to pledge loyalty to the ruling Party, and of being forced to work in factories manufacturing gloves for little pay.

Schools that previously taught Arabic language and trained imams have also been forced to shutter, the Telegraph has reported. Instead, the government has set up special schools to train imams to have the “correct political stance,” according to Chinese state media.

Chinese authorities are “really worried about external religious influence and authority,” said Dru Gladney, an expert in China’s ethnic minority groups and a professor of anthropology at Pomona College.

Being religious “is a threat to the political authority to the state; you’re giving allegiance to a non-Chinese authority,” said Mr Gladney.

“Whether it’s the Dalai Lama or the Pope, or it’s the head of Falun Gong [a spiritual group], the state won’t tolerate it.”

Pictures of exiled Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama are banned, though photos of Mr Xi are allowed, and encouraged, as observed by foreign journalists on a recent government-arranged trip to Tibet.

“Xi is centralising authority and centralising power,” said David Stroup, a lecturer at the University of Manchester who has studied ethnic minority groups in China.

There’s an interest “to build a nation-state identity,” he said.

Indeed Mr Xi has talked of the “Chinese dream” – an effort to foster a shared identity, a move the Communist Party is betting will secure greater political stability in the long-run.

Experts, however, argue that the suppression campaign in the long-term will backfire.

“They’re creating more resentment among Muslim communities, and theyr’e going to push more of them into more radical solutions,” said Mr Gladney.

Officially, the ruling Party recognises five major religions – Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicisim and Protestantism. But in practice, the government tightly controls and regulates the practise of these faiths.

China, for instance, has long insisted that it approve bishop appointments, clashing with absolute papal authority to select them. Even mentions of “God” and “Bible” have been censored from children’s classics, like Robinson Crusoe, translated for school curriculums instead as “good heaven” and “several books.”

The suppression is not “just targeted exclusively at Islam, but seems to be prosecuted most vigorously when it comes to Islam,” said Rian Thum, senior research fellow at the University of Nottingham.

That is because of broader Islamophobia in China given a misperception that terrorism is linked to Islam, he said.

Another reason is “the turn toward ethnonationalism as a legitimising narrative for why the Communist Party should be the organisation that runs China".

And that is why religions deemed to be foreign are being targeted, he said.

“This is an ethnonationalist purge of cultural material seen as foreign by virtue of not lining up with the Han ethnic majority.”

READ MORE



Wind turbines are seen in Palm Springs, California. (photo: Mint Images/Getty Images)
Wind turbines are seen in Palm Springs, California. (photo: Mint Images/Getty Images)

How Renewable Energy Could Power Your State
Tara Lohan, The Revelator
Excerpt: "How much of U.S. energy demand could be met by renewable sources? According to a new report from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, the answer is an easy 100%."

The report looked at how much renewable energy potential each state had within its own borders and found that almost every state could deliver all its electricity needs from instate renewable sources.

And that's just a start: The report found that there's so much potential for renewable energy sourcing, some states could produce 10 times the electricity they need. Cost remains an issue, as does connecting all of this capacity to the grid, but prices have dropped significantly, and efficiency continues to improve. Clean energy is not only affordable but could be a big boost to the economy. Locally sourced renewables create jobs, reduce pollution, and make communities more climate resilient.

So where are the opportunities? Rooftop solar, the study found, could supply six states with at least half of their electricity needs. But wind had the greatest potential. For 35 states, onshore wind alone could supply 100% of their energy demand, and offshore wind could do the same in 21 states. (The numbers overlap a bit.)

The study follows a similar report conducted a decade ago and shows that the clean energy field has made substantial progress in that time.

The Revelator spoke with Maria McCoy, a research associate at the Institute and report co-author, about what's changed and how to turn all the potential into reality.

What's changed in the 10 years since you last looked at the potential for instate renewable energy?

There's definitely been technology improvements in all the energy sources, but especially solar. Obviously there's the same amount of sun, but the solar panels themselves have a higher percentage of solar photovoltaic efficiency. Most states, on average, had 16% more solar potential this time around than they did a decade ago.

And for the other technologies, it's a matter of either more space being available or the technologies themselves improving. Wind turbines now can generate a lot more energy with the same amount of wind.

Where do you see the most potential?

There's been a lot of development in offshore wind and I think it's on the cusp of really becoming a big player in the clean energy field. But regulations, including at the federal level, have blocked it from happening at scale in the United States. Whereas in Europe there's already some incredibly efficient offshore wind farms that are generating a lot of electricity. Those companies are just starting to move into the U.S. market.

But it's onshore wind that has the biggest potential. Our research found that some states could generate over 1,000% of their energy with onshore wind if they really took advantage of it.

Your report didn't consider the potential of large-scale solar. Why?

We looked at the potential of rooftop solar rather than large-scale solar because as an energy democracy organization, we're really focused on distributed and community-owned energy. But it's also because pretty much every state has enough capacity to completely be powered by large-scale solar. It just then becomes an issue of land-usage debates and other challenges.

Your research shows there's a ton of potential for renewables across the country. How do we realize that potential?

Continued support for renewable energy is a big one. There are a lot of credits that are phasing out and without renewing those, it will make it a little bit tougher for the market.

We were looking at just the technical ability to produce the energy and not necessarily the cost effectiveness, but we did recognize in the report that the costs have come down. The cost of solar PV, for example, has dropped 70%. So this is not really a pie-in-the-sky goal. It's definitely gotten a lot more feasible and many cities are already doing it or planning to in the near future.

I think the will is there and people want renewable energy, it's just a matter of fighting the status quo. A lot of these utilities have been using the same business model for decades and they're not really keeping up with where things are going and where the community wants things to go.

They're holding on to their fossil fuel infrastructure and their business model that profits off building more fossil gas plants when solar plus storage is already a cheaper energy source for customers. And wind is very cheap. If utility regulators and state and national policy could hold these utilities accountable to serving the public, which is their job as regulated monopolies, we could finally get to see some of this potential becoming a reality.

Having the ability to generate energy locally and store it and use it locally will create jobs and provide a lot of resilience to the grid and communities. And with climate change, I think that's becoming more and more important.

Was there anything that surprised you about your findings?

We definitely expected things to be better but I don't know if we expected them to be this much better in 10 years. Seeing all this potential and these ridiculously high percentages — I mean, being able to generate greater than 1,000% of the electricity we need with renewables in some states is just a sign of how abundant clean energy is.

And it's kind of sad, I guess, that some states aren't even able to get to 25% or 50% clean energy goals in their renewable portfolio standards. I would hope that the train starts rolling a little faster.

And I hope our research can inspire others who think maybe their state doesn't have a lot of renewable energy capacity in their area to realize that they do, and it could provide for all that they need and more.



Tara Lohan is deputy editor of The Revelator and has worked for more than a decade as a digital editor and environmental journalist focused on the intersections of energy, water and climate. Her work has been published by The Nation, American Prospect, High Country News, Grist, Pacific Standard and others. She is the editor of two books on the global water crisis.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

READ MORE


Contribute to RSN

Update My Monthly Donation







BREAKING: Elon Musk’s gamble BLOWS UP in his face PAY ATTENTION! ELECT CLOWNS EXPECT A CIRCUS!

  ELON MUSK TOLD MAGA DIM WITS TO CUT CHILD CANCER REEARCH FUNDING! WHAT HAS ELON MUSK EVER DONE FOR ANYONE?  THIS IS ABOUT CUTTING SOCIAL S...